National City City Council
November 4, 2025

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Planning
Prepared by: David Welch, Principal Planner
Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Continued Public Hearing to Consider Certification of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility on BNSF Property.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff Recommends Approving the Appeal and Adopting Separate Resolutions Entitled:

1. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility (San Diego Clean Fuels LLC) within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way and BNSF-Owned Property, Located West of the 1800 Block of Cleveland Avenue and North of West 19th Street, North to Civic Center Drive,”

2. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility (San Diego Clean Fuels LLC) within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way and BNSF-Owned Property, Located West of the 1800 Block of Cleveland Avenue and North of West 19th Street, North to Civic Center Drive,”

and;

3. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Tr ansfer Facility (San Diego Clean Fuels LLC) Within BNSF Railroad Right -of-Way and BNSF -Owned Property, Located West of the 1800 Block of Cleveland Avenue and North of West 19th Street, North to Civic Center Drive.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

The Planning Commission certified a Final Environmental Impact Report by unanimous vote and subsequently denied the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by the following vote:

Ayes: Armenta, Castle, Quinonez, Sanchez Nays: Miller Absent: Valenzuela

At their hearing of October 7, 2025, the City Council considered the appeal and took public comment. More than 50 members of the public spoke on the item, with the majority not in support of project approval. Issues of concern were related to rail and truck traffic, diesel particulate matter (DPM), the potential for incidents involving hazardous materials, and overall air quality. Ultimately, the City Council continued the item in order to work towards conditions to offset existing

substandard air quality conditions and to limit any potential decrease in air quality or increase in vehicle emissions in the area.

EXPLANATION:

Since the continuation of the public hearing, staff has worked with the applicants on crafting conditions related to City Council discussion on reducing the effects of additional truck traffic in the

project area. Added conditions (No. 72 through 76) aim to improve overall air quality for residents in proximity of the project proposal through a combination of BNSF commitments to reduced emissions, confirmation of state-mandated increases in the use of cleaner diesel fuel for vehicles, tree planting, and providing air filtration systems to area residents.

In addition to the above-noted conditions, it should be mentioned that the $200,000 economic benefit payment, as discussed in the original staff report, can be used for anything related to offsetting existing air quality and quality of life hardships. This can include not only landscaping and air filtration, but also specific identified programs to benefit resident health and reduce exposure to environmental concerns, which will be ongoing.

Furthermore, the economic benefit payment can also be used to offset road maintenance costs over the life of the project. The cost of replacing one mile of comparable roadway is approximately $1 million. A typical road maintenance schedule would involve major maintenance every five to ten years. Assuming $1 million to $2 million in economic benefit payments over that period, combined with the assumed minimal share of truck tri ps (the project would add 72 round trips per day, as compared to the existing volume), it is expected that the economic benefit payment will be able to cover all anticipated landscaping, air filtration, and road maintenance needs, plus any other specific identified programs.

In addition to the conditions discussed above, the Final EIR has been revised to capture clarifying edits to the Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Table 3.1-6). The changes are shown in Section 4.0 – Errata. The emission va lues in the table for only Mainline Rail Emissions were presented in the incorrect columns for the ROG, CO, and SO 2 for summer and winter daily and tons per year. There are no changes to the values for NO X, PM10, and PM2.5. These clarifications do result in updated total emissions sums within the table. However, all Project emissions remain well below daily and annual thresholds for all criteria pollutants.

All of the information added pursuant to this Errata merely clarifies, corrects, adds to, or makes insignificant modifications to information in the EIR. The City has reviewed the information in this Errata and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pur suant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

*The following is the original staff report and included for reference*

Executive Summary
Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 2025 and denied the request for a CUP and CDP based on the findings in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-

14. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission and is thereby afforded the opportunity to present their appeal to the City Council. The requested action by City Council is to either uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission (grant or deny the appeal request).

The applicant’s appeal asserts that the findings in the Planning Commission denial were not accurate:

Findings for Denial of the Conditional Use Permit:

#1 asserts that the facility is not essential or desirable because there are cleaner methods of delivery of the clean fuels. We do not believe that the cleaner methods mentioned are practically available at the current time.

#2 indicates that the project would be detrimental to the public in the vicinity due to the anticipation that the ‘last mile’ delivery trucks will be petroleum diesel fueled and contribute to negative air quality in the area. Given that the truck operators are hauling renewable diesel, it would make sense that these truck operators would use the fuel that they haul.

Furthermore, USD Clean Fuels was willing to accept a condition that these vehicles would be required to use renewable diesel within a reasonable period of time after the facility is operational; making this finding void. It should also be noted that the EIR found air quality impacts based on petroleum diesel truck emissions as is required for air quality modeling, to be less than significant.

Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit:

#1 says that the project is in conflict with the Community Emissions Reduction Plan because it increases the number of diesel trucks within the Portside Community. Again, the finding’s concern is based on the trucks using petroleum diesel rather than renewable diesel. Furthermore, these short haul delivery truck trips replace long haul carriers, improving the air quality in the entire area. If the short haul trucks are conditioned to use renewable diesel fuel instead of petroleum diesel, the air quality is improved still further.

At the public hearing the Planning Commission heard comments from over 30 speakers, of which only two were in support of the proposed pro ject. Five written public comments were also submitted in opposition. Among the concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing were air quality and public health impacts from the operation of up to 72 diesel trucks a day entering the proposed facility and the inadequacy of the voluntary economic benefit to offset potential impacts on the City. City Council may consider adopting new or modified conditions of approval should they decide to approve the appeal in response to public concerns. The Community Emissions Reduction Plan discussed in the appeal can be accessed at https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/capp/cerp/Portside-Environmental- Justice-CERP-July-2021.pdf.

Prior to the denial of the project, Planning Commission voted to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). However, the standard of review for the appeal is de novo, which mea ns the matter is heard anew and without being bound by the previous decision of the Planning Commission. Therefore, the City Council becomes the approving authority for the project and will be required to also act on a resolution to certify the FEIR.

The applicant proposes to construct and operate a fuel transfer facility to be operated by San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC within an approximately 7.5-acre site located on and adjacent to existing Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) railway tracks. The lo cation is between Civic Center Drive and West 19th Street and to the west of Cleveland Avenue. Rail cars will be delivered to the facility utilizing an existing rail spur that will be reconfigured to provide capacity for up to 21 rail cars. Clean renewable and biofuels (renewable diesel, ethanal, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)) will then be transloaded from the rail cars to trucks with an above -ground pump system.

No fuel will be stored on site. Overall transloading capacity will be approximately 13,80 0 barrels

of fuel per day. The site would receive up to 72 trucks daily, which would deliver the fuel to retail clients in the metropolitan San Diego area. The property is located within the City’s Coastal Zone (CZ) overlay and subject to the development r egulations outlined in the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Since the Implementation Plan of the LCP has not been formally updated, properties within the CZ are still regulated by the previous Land Use Code (LUC). The zoning designation of the property is Medium Manufacturing (MM).

Land uses that either store or distribute fuel in the MM zone are required to obtain approval of a CUP prior to operation. All projects in the CZ that require approval of a CUP must also have an approved CDP. The City of National City maintains permit jurisdiction for the subject property and, therefore, is able to approve a CDP without a permit application to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC retains the authority to hear appeals on CDPs when specific conditions or characteristics are present. This project is considered a “major energy facility”1 and, therefore, appealable pursuant to Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. Due to the characteristics of the proposed project, staff requested an Initial Study (IS) checklist pu rsuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be prepared, which was submitted to the City with a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City, as lead agency, decided that the draft MND document was not a sufficient environmental re view document for the project and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was subsequently prepared.

Site Characteristics
The 7.5-acre site is located along the east side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way between West 18th and 19th Streets. Railway improvements in conjunction with this project extend north to the Civic Center Drive crossing. Immediately to the east of the property is an alleyway and industrial property with frontage on Cleveland Avenue. Most of the uses in the surro unding area are industrial in nature. However, there are City -owned properties planned for tourist -supporting commercial uses less than a half mile to the south as well as a newly opened cannabis lounge, restaurant, and hotel adjacent to Paradise Marsh. Se veral legal, non -conforming residential properties also exist within the vicinity of the subject property including the McKinley Apartments approximately 380 feet east and single -family homes approximately 900 feet to the south 2. It is unclear how many sin gle-family residences remain west of Interstate 5 in the City since some structures have been incorporated into commercial businesses. The nearest school is Kimball Elementary School, which is more that 1,500 feet from the site, on the east side of Interstate 5.

The site itself is comprised of three different sections. First, there is the existing BNSF railway.

This a spur that terminates within Port of San Diego properties to the south. The main Port-related operations are Pasha Group, which receives ship ments of new automobiles, and Dixieline Lumber, which receives shipments of new lumber and wood products. Adjacent to the subject site, there are two operational tracks that transition to one rail track to the north, just south of the Civic Center Drive crossing. With anticipation of this proposed project, BNSF has been working on the design and implementation of a second track across Civic Center Drive to maintain operational capacity. Ultimately, BNSF rail traffic enters and exits the region to the north through downtown San Diego and along the coast to Orange County. Second, the middle portion of the site that is proposed for up to eight new tracks leading to the transfer facility is a former Pacific Steel, Incorporated (PSI) remediation site. The Departm ent of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is still actively working on remediation from PSI operations, but the land within the subject site has been substantially remediated as of the writing of this report. Finally, the area of the subject

1 Coastal-dependent developments like refineries, power plants, and offshore petroleum facilities that are subject to strict regulation and permitting by the California Coastal Commission due to their potential adverse effects on coastal resources.
2 New residential uses are not permitted in the MM zone. Existing lawfully constructed residences may remain, subject to NCMC 18.11 (Nonconforming uses, structures, and parcels).

site between West 18th Street to the north, the alley to the east, West 19th Street to the south, and the existing tracks to the west is proposed to be developed with the transfer facility. This land was previously occupied by industrial operations and Harrison Street right -of-way that has already been vacated3. All former structures have been demolished and the land in its current state would be considered disturbed.

Proposed Use
The applicant proposes to improve the 7.5 -acre site for the purposes of operating a fuel transloading facility. This site is located along existing BNSF railroad and on adjacent BNSF - owned land. The fuel transfer operations would take place on the portion of land between West 18th and 19 th Streets, between the existing railroad and industrial prope rties along Cleveland Avenue. The facility would operate 24 hours a day with 72 trucks per day primarily entering and exiting the site during off -peak hours (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Land uses that either store or distribute fuel are required to obtain approval of a CUP and CDP prior to the commencement of operations. There are no additional specific use regulations in the LUC for this type of facility.

The proposed operator, San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC, intends to build the facility to achieve objectives related to increased access to renewable fuels in the San Diego region. The project hopes to achieve or contribute to the following:

 Contribute to the State’s commitment to a transition to carbon neutrality by 2045.

Renewable fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve benchmark reductions.
 Expand the availability of renewable fuels to the region by advancing the goal of the State’s Low-Carbon Fuels Standard, which is a component of the 2022 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan, and solving geographic imbalances in the availability of cleaner, lower carbon fuel.
 Lowering of emissions compared to existing supply chains by utilizing rail to deliver fuel to the San Diego market.
 Increase the speed at which cleaner fuels can be delivered to the market.  Generate employment opportunities for National City and surrounding communities.  Develop underutilized and/or previously contaminated properties while minimizing conflicts with surrounding existing uses.
 Provide an appropri ately sized facility that balances business performance while minimizing necessary truck trips.
 Locate the facility in an appropriately zoned property with direct access to Interstate 5 (I - 5).
 Provide infrastructure improvements to meet project needs and improve safety along the BNSF railroad.
 Provide additional firefighting capacity in the project area to address quick responses to hazards and emergencies.

The applicant’s proposed physical improvements for the project include:

 Construction of railway tra cks and turnouts/crossovers to facilitate car movement in/out and within the transload facility.
 Installation of concrete slap pump pads at each transload spot.  Installation of truck load slabs sloped to drain in the center at each transload spot.  Installation of pumps and piping to move fuels from rail cars to truck loading spots.  Containment enclosures for additive totes.

3 Harrison Avenue in this location was a “paper street”, which only existed on the Assessor’s Parcel Map.

No developed right-of-way was located here.

 Concrete-lined containment basin and pipe each load slab drain to the basin.  Track pans for containment at the rail transloading cars.  A small office building with control center, restrooms, and driver check-in area.  All weather paving for the facility and circulation.
 Lighting, as needed.

The approximate throughput capacity of the proposed facility will be 13,800 barrels of fuel daily.

While the capacity of the facility was not initially stated by the applicant, there has been a reduction from what was originally proposed in 2023. Additionally, the proposal initially estimated 115 trucks per day would be entering the facility to transpor t fuel. However, the current proposal is for approximately 72 trucks daily. Therefore, the capacity of the project was reduced by more than a third during the environmental review process. The proposed circulation of the site is for trucks to enter from West 18th Street and exit onto West 19 th Street. The site is in close proximity to I -5.

The general circulation pattern would be Civic Center Drive to Tidelands Avenue, West 19th Street to Cleveland Avenue and then West 18th Street into the site, returning the same way.

In addition to the transfer of fuel, the project includes measures to increase safety and prevent contamination from fuel spills. A 37,700 -gallon concrete containment basin is proposed to be constructed below the rail car unloading and truck loading area. The volume of the basin is 110 percent that of a rail car. An Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fluorine Free Firefighting platform and additional fire hydrants will also be installed on site for use in the event of a fire. A Facility Response Plan (FRP) will also be developed to prevent or address spills.

Alternative Fuels and Environmental Considerations
The proposed project is in response to the State of California’s commitment to improving air quality, reducing emissions from fossil fuels including greenhouse gases (GHG). Achieving State goals can help improve public health and reduce risks related to human-induced climate change.

The landmark state bill AB 32, or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, required California to reduce its GHG emis sion to 1990 levels by 2020. Implementation of AB 32, and subsequent legislation, is primarily the responsibility of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While zero-emission technology is highly desired, CARB also encourages interim measures to help reduce emissions from current levels. One of these measures is the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which encourages the use of alternative fuel types that can achieve lower emissions.

The applicant proposes to construct the fuel transfer facility to impr ove the delivery of these fuel types to the San Diego market while also reducing emissions within the supply chain. The proposed fuel for distribution are biofuels, which include renewable diesel, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Renewable diesel and SAF can be produced with new or recycled vegetable oils, animal fats, greases, algae, as well as crop residues or woody biomass.

Renewable diesel and SAF are also designated as a “drop -in” biofuel allowing them to fully replace petroleum-based fuels with zero modification to stage facilities or engines. Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable fuel manufactured domestically from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant grease. When used in diesel engines, renewable diesel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%. Renewable diesel and a blend of renewable diesel and up to 20% biodiesel can also be used to replace petroleum diesel with no changes to an engine.

With the ability to produce biofuels from a wide variety of sources, they are considered 100% sustainable, as opposed to petroleum-based fuels.

While there can be a net benefit from an increase in availability of biofuels in the San Diego region, the same assertion cannot be made for the City of National City, Westside communi ties, and nearby receptors in the MM zone. There have been multiple efforts within the City to improve the health of residents and reduce dangerous pollutants associated with industrial and light industrial uses. Previous actions include the passage of the Westside Specific Plan and Amortization Program, early adoption of a Health and Environmental Justice Element within the General Plan,

designation of the AB 617 Portside Community and passage of the Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP), and adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Primarily due to, but not limited to, the project’s proposed utilization of diesel-powered truck trips for operations of the facility and the related impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and air quality, City staff requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project.

Analysis
The project was analyzed for impacts pertaining to CEQA in the attached EIR. Some of the more specific details in the EIR will not be discussed in this document, but instead the project will be analyzed as it pertains to existing plans and policies related to the proposed development.

General Plan
The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial (I). The project proposed is an industrial use. The proposal is also well below the floor area ratio of 2.0 intended for this designation. The General Plan is comprised of several “elements”, of which some have been recently updated through the Focused General Plan Update that was completed in 2024. Several policies from various elements of the General Plan pertain to this project, including:

Land Use (LU) Element
Policy LU-1.3 pertains to urban greening efforts, LU-4.2 encourages various pedestrian-scale urban design strategies, LU-4.4 pertains to the maintenance of sidewalks and bicycle routes, LU-5.3 encourages businesses to employ National City residents, LU 6.5 requires development to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable specific plans, LU-6.5 pertains to consistency tithe the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)

The Land Use Element of the General Plan has several policies related to new development. This project relates to public realm improvements regarding sidewalk maintenance, landscaping and other greening efforts, and consistency with various codes and policies as discussed in this report.

Conditions of approval ensure that pedestrian areas around the project will remain well-maintained and enhanced with appropriate landscaping elements and tree canopy. The project and associated right-of-way improvements at the railroad crossing at Civic Center Drive will enhance portions of the public realm and avoid conflict with bicycle routes, such as the Bayshore Bikeway. Consistency with the CAP and policies rela ted to community enhancements such as LU -1.3 will be evaluated in subsequent sections of this report.

Transportation (T) Element
Policy T-3.6 relates to the enhanced transit services, Policy T-8.1 pertains to enhancements of infrastructure to facilitate t imely movement of goods, particularly intermodal transfers, Policy T-8.4 pertains to the movement of goods by rail, Policy T-9.4 pertains to noise and pollution abatement associated with goods movement.

The project proposes to utilize existing rail to transfer fuel for delivery to retail outlets within the City and in the greater region. Elements of the project ensure that the delivery of fuel will be conducted in an efficient manner such as an improved rail crossing, operations at off-peak hours, and proximity to major truck routes. Truck movements will largely avoid residential properties and other areas with sensitive uses in the City. Policy T -3.6 is related to community enhancements, which will be discussed later in this report.

Safety (S) Element
Policy S-7.3 pertains to the ability to effectively respond to hazardous materials emergencies, S-8.1 pertains to the clean-up and reuse of contaminated sites.

The project proposes to reduce risk from fire hazards will be accomplished through the inclusion of a specialized firefighting platform and additional fire hydrants, as required by the National City Fire Department (NCFD). The project will be located on a vacant, under -utilized, and previously contaminated site, which is encouraged by policy S-8.1.

Noise and Nuisance (NN) Element
Policies NN-1.9, NN-1.10, NN-2.5, NN-3.1, NN-3.3, and NN-3.4 pertain to impacts related to noise levels and ground borne vibrations via construction, on -site activities, and off -site transportation. Policy NN-4.2 related to the reduction in offensive odors and other noxious substances.

Impacts related to noise and nuisance were evaluated for the proposed project in the EIR. Primarily, a Noise Analysis determined noise thresholds in the City’s Noise Ordinance would be met fo r activities related to the construction and operation of the proposed project. The project location has existing ambient noise levels from nearby freeway traffic and other industrial uses. Staff has proposed conditions of approval requiring adherence to truck routes in the City to prevent increases in traffic-related noises and a six-foot high, solid fence or wall to reduce the potential for noise impacts to adjacent and nearby properties.

The applicant asserts that offensive odors associated with fuels and additives mostly come from combustion, which is not related to the proposed on-site activities. Nuisance odors are also regulated and enforced by San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 51 (Public Nuisances). A Condition of Approval is recommended requiring adherence to SDAPCD regulations.

Open Space and Agriculture (OS) Element
Policies OS-1.1, OS-1.2, OS-1.4, OS-2.1, OS-2.2, OS-2.3, OS-2.5, and OS-2.7 pertain to the preservation of open spaces, habitat, biological resources, and environmentally sensitive areas. Policy OS-1-3 encourages the planting of native plants near open spaces. Policies OS-4.2 and OS-4.4 encourage the planting of street trees and promotes the planting of shade trees with substantial canopies. Policies OS-8.4 and OS-8.8 pertain to the preservation of historic and cultural resources.

The EIR analyzed the potential for project impacts to open spaces, biological resources, and environmentally sensitive areas in detail. Adherence to mitigation measures discussed in the report are included as a condition of approval. In addition, staff is recommending Conditions of Approval that require additional landscaping, including the planting of street trees that will enhance the urban tree canopy. Mitigation measures are also required for the monitoring of paleontological or other cultural resources in the event they are discovered during grading or construction.

The Initial Study checklist prepared for this project also identified a potential wetland feature on this site. However, staff has confirmed that the discussed feature no longer exists. This is further discussed in the EIR.

Conservation and Sustainability (CS) Element
Policy CS-1.1 pertains to the reduction of the urban heat island effect. Policy CS-1.2 pertains to the development of industries that benefit the environment. Policies CS-3.1 and CS-3.3 pertain to stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and low-impact development (LID) practices.

As previously discussed, staff is recommending a condition of approval for the project that would require enhanced street trees to support policy CS-1.1. The project proposes to transport clean fuels, which were discussed in the previous section of this report. The improved access to these alternative fuel types will have benefits for both the local economy and regional air quality. New construction

projects are required to meet stormwater requirements and BMPs discussed in the conditions of approval from the Engineering Department.

Health and Environmental Justice (HEJ) Element
Policy HEJ-1.2, Policy HEJ-1.5, Policy HEJ-2.5, and HEJ-2.6

The HEJ was created to identify public health risk and environmental justice concerns and improve living conditions to foster the physical health and well-being of National City’s residents.

National City was an early adopter of this category of general plan element and the HEJ precedes the passage of SB 1000, which now requires this type of element for all general plans in the state.

At the time of the adoption of the HEJ, National City had some of the worst health outcomes in San Diego County, including high rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Both breathing disorders have correlation with p oor air quality, which is caused by industrial pollution and vehicle emissions. The Westside of National City is particularly impacted by its close proximity to industrial areas west of I -5, port activities, Naval Base San Diego, and freeway traffic. In more recent years, studies have also identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a known carcinogen. This has furthered health concerns in areas with heavy truck traffic. Both the Westside and the industrial areas in the City have existing non-conforming uses, which means there are residential uses and sensitive receptors in close proximity to industrial operations, as well as polluting businesses in the middle of residential areas. While the proposed project is not located in a Specific Plan area, impacts to the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) area should also be considered.

Policy HEJ-1.2 states “consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with land use decisions, including enforcement action, 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.” In this instance, health concerns have been identified for communities in National City at both the local and state levels pertaining to new industrial uses and increased truck traffic.

However, the EIR that was prepared for the proposed project included a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that concluded that such impacts from the project specifically were less than significant.

The three primary assessments were cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and acute health hazards.

Cancer risk is calculated by exposure periods with 70-year (lifetime risk calculation) and 30-year (individual risk calculation) periods for residents and 25-year periods for workers. Health risks for residents were based on the nearest residential use, the McKinley Apartments at West 18th Street and McKinley Avenue. Findings from the assessment are found in Table 3.1.7 of the EIR, which shows activities from construction and operation of the proposed fuel transfer facility. Results show the project would not result in a significant contribution to cancer risk to this community.

Findings of significance were the same for chronic and acute health hazards, as shown in Table

3.1.8 of the EIR.

This policy encourages the City to consider actions to reduce potential health impacts. It is the opinion of staff that the policies related to the City’s updated CAP and the AB 617 Portside Community’s CERP are best suited to determine conformance with this HEJ policy, which are discussed below.

Policy HEJ-1.5 promotes the inclusion of potentially affected community residents in the decision- making process. The Planning Division has followed standard guidelines for both the environmental review process and the ongoing public hearing process. In addition, information on the project has been posted on the City website and staff had frequent email communications with interested parties. Both the applicant and the District 1 Councilmember, Luz Molina, have also worked to provide the public information and updates on the proposed project.

The project was initially submitted in 2023 with a draft Initi al Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by an environmental consultant. Planning staff posted these documents for a 30 -day public review period on the State Clearinghouse website beginning on June 2, 2023 in accordance to CEQA guide lines. Several comments were provided to the City during this period. After further discussions with the environmental consultant and modifications to the draft MND, the City ultimately decided a more thorough review of the project was required and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was requested. While the review process was being worked on with the consultant, Councilmember Molina also invited City staff to provide information on the project at town hall meetings in September and October of 2023. T he public documents from the original MND generated significant interest in the project even though no public hearings had been announced at the time.

The earliest meeting that was noticed to the general public was a scoping meeting for the Draft EIR held on May 23, 2024, which coincided with the posting of the revised Initial Study and Notice of Preparation on the State Clearinghouse website. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit feedback on the scope of the review to be conducted for the Draft EIR. 27 comment cards were submitted by the public at this meeting as well as another 11 comment letters. Comments were summarized within the draft EIR.

The latest meeting with the general public was a Community Open House held August 14, 2024.

This meeting wa s prompted by the applicant and their desire to have more community engagement in advance of any public hearings. Once again, Councilmember Molina collaborated with this event since the project is proposed within District 1.

Staff has been in regular comm unication with other agencies, organizations such as the Environmental Health Coalition, and interested residents throughout the review process. In particular, the public has been concerned with the timing of public hearings as staff worked with the environmental consultant and applicant to complete revisions to the draft documents. At the same time, the applicant has also had numerous meetings with City leaders and organizations regarding this project. The first public hearing was ultimately noticed for the Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2025. However, the item was pulled due to significant concerns presented in a public comment by the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

The topic of environmental justice was one of the concerns of the CCC, which stated in its letter that they were recommending “a more thorough analysis of environmental justice impacts and improved outreach for this project”. As summarized, outreach for this project has been consistent with the City’s policy HEJ-1.5, although not always through the Planning Division, in that residents have been provided with consistent access to information regarding the project and how to participate in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the primary forum for public participation is the public hearing for which this report has been drafted. The project is also potentially subject to an appeal to the California Coastal Commission after the City Council has taken action.

Policy HEJ -2.5 encourages the protection of existing sensitive land uses through feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/clears, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pol lution.

While this policy discusses existing land uses, it also speaks to the importance of setbacks, landscaping, and other measures that can be utilized by a new project.

Policy HEJ-2.6, similarly to HEJ -1.2, requires to City to 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. While the EIR includes findings that the proposed pro ject will not result in significant health impacts, it cannot be ruled out that the operations and truck traffic associated with the proposed fuel transfer

facility will not contribute to cumulative impacts resulting from existing and new industrial developments within the City. Once again, the CAP and CERP are the best mechanisms by which to evaluate this proposal.

Local Coastal Program (LCP)
The LCP is comprised of two sections: the Implementation Plan and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan was recently updated in 2023 and certified by the CCC in March of this year. However, the Implementation Plan update, which is currently underway, is yet to be approved.

The Implementation Plan of the LCP discusses permit jurisdiction, applicability of CDPs, required findings, and applicable development standards. The proposed project is located within the City’s adopted exclusion area, where new development is generally exempt from a CDP. However, the need for a discretionary permit (e.g., CUP) triggers the need for a CDP. The Implementation section also requires that new development provide coastal access, where required, and to not impede coastal access. The site is in the middle of the City’s industrial area and does not require, or have the possibility to interfere with, access to coastal areas. Applicable development standards in the current adopted LCP reference Municipal Code sections related to new structures, uses, parking, landscaping, etc. Since these references pertain to the previous version of the LUC, development standards that would be considered defunct in the rest of the City remain in effect. Conformance with these standards are discussed in the following section. The two required findings of approval for CDPs are as follows:

 That granting said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City.
 That the granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with an implements the Certified Local Coastal Program.

The Land Use Plan of the LCP provides both policy recommendations and a land use plan map.

Significant concerns for this plan include coastal access, preservation of habitat areas, supportive land uses, and coastal hazards. In addition, the Land Use Plan requires that development in the CZ adhere to policies found in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The industrial section of the CZ is largely regulated by the existing development standards in the LUC for the manufacturing zones. These standards are relied upon to ensure that new development is visually appropriate. In addition, there is a policy stating that new development should consider proximity to the Bayshore Bikeway for the purposes of maximizing the recreational potential of the area. The project proponents have coordinated with City staff to ensure the upgraded rail crossings at Civic Center Drive will not interfere with improvements to this bikeway.

The City’s LCP mostly relies upon the previous LUC to regulate industrial uses to ensure they do not cause nuisances, b oth through the CUP approval process and through adherence to existing development standards. Other than additional policies noted in this section, the project’s conformance with the two required findings for approval of a CDP are analyzed in other sections of this report.

California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act
The proposed project requires the approval of a CDP and is therefore subject to the Coastal Act and appeal procedures of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Though the City retains p ermit jurisdiction, projects with certain characteristics remain appealable to the CCC. In this instance, the project is considered a “major energy facility” and can be appealed to the CCC within 10 working days of a final local action notice. Final action is not taken until the project is approved or denied by the City Council by consent or at a public hearing.

Policies of the City’s LCP are inclusive of more general policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In some instances, the LCP adds more specificity. Overall policies in the Coastal Act address public access, recreation, the marine environment, land resources, and development. The LCP included City-specific policies on public access, recreation, marsh preservation, visual resources, industrial development, and environmental hazards.

The project is located within the middle of the City’s existing and zoned industrial properties. Both the project site and all adjacent properties are zoned Medium Manufacturing (MM). The nearest recreational amenities are more than 1,500 feet to the south of the site and access to San Diego Bay to the west is largely restricted by Naval Base San Diego and Port of San Diego properties. While both the LCP and Coastal Act have polices related to public access, it is not required for this project or impeded by this project. No facilities related to coastal access are provided or needed.

Chapter IV of the LCP and Sections 30220 through 30224 of the Coastal Act have specific polices related to recreation. As previously mentioned, the subject site is in an industrialized area and the Land Use Plan for the LCP encourages the provision of recreational opportunities in other areas of the City’s CZ.

The marine environment, land resources, and marshes are largely unaffected by the pr oposed development. The project location is not adjacent to any marine resources and there are no known land resources such as habitat, agricultural land, or archaeological or paleontological resources. The project proposes a new development in an existing industrial area. Storm Water Best Management Practices will be required by the Engineering Department, which will ensure that nearby waterways, including the bay and marsh, are protected from pollutants. Mitigation requirements will be in place to protect archaeological or paleontological resources should they be present during construction activities.

The Coastal Act and Chapter VI of the LCP calls for the protection of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas. The proposed new development will improve visual quality of the area by cleaning up a blighted property. Screening fences/walls will also be required to reduce the visibility of the transfer station in a reasonable manner.

Wetland
In a comment letter provided by the CCC on June 2, 2025, it was stated that the project site includes at least one single-parameter wetland. Wetlands in coastal areas can be designated by the presence of just one indicator. A wetland on the project site would have resulted in the following: the presence would establish appeal jurisdiction with the CCC for the project, the project would become infeasible due to buffering requirements found in the LCP, and the EIR would have n eeded to discuss justifications for the fill of the wetland and mitigation measures. As discussed earlier, the project is already appealable to the CCC since it includes a proposed “major energy facility”.

An Aquatic Resources Delineation was completed for the proposed project in July of 2022, which is included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR. This study discussed “Feature 3”, which was a depressional feature indicated by aerial imagery and site visits. Dried algal mats were present, but the EIR described this feature as “an isolated puddle.” Staff visited the site on January 30, 2025 and the depression was no longer present. Soil remediation activities have been occurring on the northern portion of the site due to the presence of pollutants from the neighboring metal recycling facility and heavy earth-moving equipment is presumed to have altered the ground level since the original survey of the depression was conducted. Due to concerns from the CCC, the environmental consultant conducted an additional field survey and assessment of “Feature 3” on July 31, 2025 and concluded the feature is no longer present on site and the “location met neither vegetation, soils, or hydrologic parameters of being a wetland under its current condition.”

Environmental Justice
The CCC also expressed concerns about the analysis of the project’s environmental justice impacts.

An Environmental Justice Policy was adopted by the CCC in 2019 that includes, among other statements, the following: The Commission will use its legal authority to ensure equitable access to clean, healthy, and accessible coastal environments for communities that have been disproportionately overburdened by pollution or with natural resources that have been subjected to permanent damage for the benefit of weal thier communities. Coastal development should be inclusive for all who work, live, and recreate on California’s coast and provide equitable benefits for communities that have historically been excluded, marginalized, or harmed by coastal development.

Staff’s analysis of this project largely addresses environmental justice concerns through the City’s Health and Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan, the updated Climate Action Plan, and the AB 617 Portside Community’s Community Emissions Reduction Plan. These documents are supportive of the CCC’s policy and staff has modified this report for clarity.

Coastal Hazards
Chapter VIII of the Land Use Plan discusses environmental hazards, as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. This chapter includes several policies related to the specific hazard of sea level rise (SLR), which require additional discussion due to the location of the proposed project. The following are relevant sections of the Coastal Act that should be taken into consideration as they relate to SLR:

Section 30235 of the Coastal Act states:

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.

Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states:

New development shall do all of the following:
a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs

Section 30270 of the Coastal Act states:

The commission shall take into account the effects of sea level rise in coastal resources planning and management policies and activities in order to identify, assess, and, to the extent feasible, avoid and mitigate the adverse effects of sea level rise.

The project location is more than 1,500 feet from the shoreline of San Diego Bay, which is mostly occupied by Naval Base San Diego and the Port of San Diego within National City. The proposed improvements for the fuel transfer facility do not include any shoreline protection devices due to the project location. It is unknown if, at any time during the life of the proposed project, nearby facilities would pursue or implement any modification of the coastline that could alter the possibility of hazards effecting the subject site.

Based on information provided by the applicant, the project’s design life is 30 years. The statewide SLR guidance for critical infrastructure recommends taking a precautionary approach by considering and planning for higher-end SLR scenarios and long-term (e.g., 100-year) planning horizons. In the past century, the average global temperature has increased by about 1.1°C, and global sea levels have increased by 7 to 8 inches (17 to 21 cm). In addition, SLR has been accelerating in recent decades, with the global rate of SLR tripling since 1971 (IPCC, 2021). There is strong scientific consensus that SLR will continue over the coming millennia regardless of future human actions, but the exact rate and amount will depend on the amount of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as the exact contribution from sources such as the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which are areas of continuing research. While planning coastal development under this uncertainty presents challenges, it is widely documented that underestimating SLR could result in costly damages and adverse outcomes to coastal resources. Planning and development decisions on the California coast must, therefore, be appropriately precautionary and made with the full understanding that SLR will change coastal landscapes and hazard conditions. Not only will siting and design decisions regarding proposed coastal development influence the future safety of the development and overall resiliency of the California coast, but such decisions will also affect the way that coastal resources protected under the Coastal Act respond to changing sea levels over time.

Currently, the best available science on SLR projections in California is provided in the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance (OPC 2024). The state guidance adopts the same framework and approach used by the Federal government and provides five sea level rise scenarios that have been regionalized for California-specific use. The state guidance also includes a decision framework to guide selection of appropriate sea level scenarios, primarily recommending evaluation of the intermediate, intermediate-high, and/or high scenarios depending on the context of the planning effort/project. This information is reflected in the Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (CCC 2024). The table below shows the sea level rise scenarios for the San Diego tide gauge, the closest tide gauge to the project site.

The existing elevation throughout the Project Site ranges from approximately 8 to 13 feet above mean sea level. Based on CoSMoS, as shown on the Our Coast Our Future Hazards Map, the

project site could begin to experience flooding impacts starting with 2.5 feet of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Starting with 4.1 feet of SLR, portions of the site may be flooded under normal, non- storm conditions. Based on the same mapping, the main pathway for flooding appears to be from the 7th Street Channel to the north, such that the northern portions of the project site would be impacted sooner/with less SLR. With increasing SLR (or with increasing SLR plus storm conditions), more portions of the project site could be flooded. C oSMoS/OCOF also provides information on groundwater changes resulting from sea level rise. The project site is already in an area with a shallow groundwater table, and SLR could result in an emergent groundwater table (i.e., groundwater flooding) in portions of the project site with 2.5 feet of SLR.

As the table above shows, 2.0 to 3.0 feet of SLR could occur somewhere between 2060 and 2070 under the High scenario, or closer to 2090 (or later) under the more likely Intermediate Scenario.

Similarly, 4.1 feet of SLR could occur as soon as 2080 under the High Scenario, or after 2110 under the Intermediate Scenario. As noted above, the Project lifetime is expected to be 30 years, but could have a potential useful life of up to 100 years.

It should be noted that the proposed project is largely influenced by State policies in place or under consideration. The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations are proposed by CARB to accelerate a large- scale transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and works in conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, the Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Regulation to meet statewide air pollution reduction goals including economy -wide carbon neutrality by 2045. The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations was adopted by CARB in April 2023; however, the Office of Administrative Law has not yet approved the regulation.

The Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations are a set of rules proposed by the CARB to ban the sale of internal-combustion passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2035 and require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) starting from the 2026 model year. The regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on November 22, 2022 and effective the same day.

The purposes of the regulations are to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and are aligned with Governor Newsom’s 2020 Executive Order N -79-20.

Given the aggressive schedule to comply with CARB’s ZEV program and ultimately phase out all internal combustion trucks and cars with ZEVs, it is reasonable to assume that the Project lifetime would not be 100 years.

As such, it appears as though the project site and the proposed development would not be exposed to hazards over the anticipated 30-year lifetime, but could start to be exposed to flooding soon after under a high scenario. Even under the High Scenario though, initial risks to proposed development may not be significant. As identified above, initial flooding impacts would occur as a result of 2.5ft of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Thus, flooding would be a rare, short-duration event rather than a routine, prolonged condition. Moreover, these earliest impacts would be primarily confined to the northern portion of the project site (north of W. 16th Street). This portion of the project site would only include construction of railroad tracks, which would likely be able to withstand occasional storm flooding impacts.

Additionally, some project design features incorporated into the Project already take into account SLR adaptation strategies, including the relocation and elevation of utility infrastructure an d placement of the fuel transload facilities and equipment to areas outside of the risk for coastal flooding conditions. Specifically, fuel transload facilities and equipment and other proposed development are primarily located on the eastern portions of the project site, which would not be exposed to flood impacts under 2.5 feet of SLR (even with a 100-year storm).

Overall, the proposed development will adequately minimize risks associated with flooding, including as exacerbated by sea level rise, over the proposed 30-year anticipated lifetime. However, coastal hazards risks would increase in the following years with additional sea level rise. As such, it is appropriate to limit the authorization of the proposed development to 30 years and to require the development of a coastal hazards adaptation and implementation plan by the end of that time horizon that identifies any strategies necessary for protecting, relocating, or otherwise adapting the development authorized by the CDP as necessary to maintain safety from flooding and other coastal hazards. Special conditions of approval related to coastal hazards are included in the draft resolution.

Land Use Code (LUC)
As discussed in the preceding section, the project is located in a section of the CZ where the City retains permit jurisdiction and the development standards applied to the proposed development are contained within the previous version of the LUC. The project is located within the MM zone, which is regulated by Chapter 18.18 of the previous LUC. Land uses in the previous code are listed as permitted or permitted with a CUP under “use groups” that organize similar land uses into broader categories. Use Group 23 – Medium Manufacturing, which is allowed in the MM zone, permits the storage and distribution of oil-based products with the approval of a CUP.

The proposal has also been reviewed for conformance with applicable design regulations. The site is sufficient in size for the proposed use and meets the minimum required lot area and frontage. The proposed development adheres to all required minimum setbacks. The office for the facility is proposed to be a small, 512 square-foot pre-manufactured structure. Per the conditions of approval, this structure will need to be reviewed and permitted by the Bu ilding Division as a permanent structure. The proposed elevations of the office do not meet the minimum aesthetic standards of Section 18.18.240 of the (previous) Land Use Code and will need to be upgraded with additional exterior materials when plans are submitted for permits. Since the use primarily takes place using industrial equipment outdoors, the project is well below both the maximum height and floor area ratio.

As previously discussed, staff is recommending increased screening since most on-site activities will take place outside of an enclosed structure.

The applicant is proposing five parking spaces on site with at least one ADA van accessible space and one EV -ready space. Parking is not required per State law AB 2097, due to the project’s proximity to the 24th Street Trolley Station. Most of the area surrounding the fuel transfer facility is open, paved surface to maximize the maneuverability of trucks and fire access. Landscaping is required for setback areas in the MM zone and the site provides approximately 8 to 12 feet of landscaping along the West 18th and 19th Street frontages and the adjacent alley, where only four feet would be required for front and exterior side yard setbacks. No landscaping is currently proposed for the four-foot setback on the west side of West 18th Street. Planning staff will need to consult with the applicant and the Engineering Department during permitting on the feasibility of adding landscaping in this location. Other general design regulations required by the (previous) LUC are related to outdoor lighting, the screening of mechanical equipment, and trash and recycling.

Conditions of Approval are included in the draft resolution ensuring conformance with these additional sections.

A Note on Non-Conforming Land Uses
The proposed project is a new construction fuel transfer facility on a site zoned for medium intensity manufacturing uses. The storage and distribution of fuel is permitted in the MM zone with approval of a CUP. In National City, many industrial uses are close to sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and day care facilities. This proximity exacerbates air quality and health issues within the City and the proposed fuel transfer facility raises concerns about increased cumulative impacts.

However, incompatible land uses are largely the result of land use decisions in the past and most of the examples in the City would not currently be permitted. Today, there are several residential properties within industrial zone districts, including the McKinley Apartments. Should any of these residential properties be redeveloped, they would not be allowed to remain residential. Similarly, the

Westside Specific Plan Area of the City is home to dozens of nonconforming commercial and industrial properties. The Westside Specific Plan was created to help resolve the most egregious examples of land use incompatibility within the City and includes stricter requirements on non - conforming land uses. Air quality issues within this portion of the City should decrease over time as incompatible businesses cease operation. An amortization program exists in the City to help expedite this process and so far two nonconforming businesses have been amortized. However, this program requires dedicated funding and staff to implement, and no new businesses have been amortized in recent years.

Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City’s first CAP was first adopted in 2011 to align with State goals related to the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As of 2018, the City had only achieve d 40% of the reduction goal for 2020. In 2023, the Climate Action Plan Update (subsequently referred to as CAP) was adopted with renewed goals and an updated emissions inventory. New goals are to reduce GHG from 2018 baseline levels 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 in alignment is current Statewide targets. The proposed project will result in a release of approximately 282 metric tons/year of GHG during construction activities and approximately 1,633 metric tons/year from operations of the fuel transfer facility. Almost all emissions from the facility will be from mobile sources (truck and rail). The amount of GHG emissions anticipated by the facility is below the threshold to be considered significant for a singular project in accordance with the methodologies recommended in the CAP. The project will also deliver a higher volume of cleaner diesel fuels to the market, which can significantly reduce GHG from emissions (up to 70% from standard diesel fuels) regionally. An estimate of the project’s overall contributi on to GHG reductions has not been provided. For the purposes of this report, the project will be evaluated based on specific strategies in the CAP.

As discussed above, the project is not considered significant for the purposes of GHG emissions.

Thresholds are discussed in detail in the attached EIR. However, it should be noted that industrial developments, such as the proposed project were incorporated into the GHG analysis used to develop the CAP based on existing General Plan land use categories. The pro ject does not exceed the intensity of use for the types of development permitted on the subject site and that was analyzed and evaluated in the CAP and the General Plan. Due to the anticipated emissions from this project, while not considered significant, opportunities to incorporate CAP strategies should be greatly encouraged for this project. The EIR includes Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 to ensure consistency with the strategies that have been identified as applicable to the project. All mitigation measu res identified in the EIR are included as conditions of approval in the draft resolution. In addition, there are other strategies in the CAP that are outside the scope of this project that will be discussed below.

Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP)
State Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) was passed in 2017 and led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to create a new community-focused and community-driven action to reduce air pollution and improve public health in communities that experience disproport ionate burdens from exposures to air pollutants. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) nominated the Portside Community for the AB 617 program, which is comprised of the neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, and Sherman Heights in the C ity of San Diego and West National City within the City of National City. At the time, the State’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool was used to evaluate the communities most vulnerable to the effects of pollution based on environmental, health, and socioeconomic data for AB 617. All census tracts for the Portside Community ranked at or above the 85th percentile for vulnerability using this tool.

The most recent version of this tool, version 4.0, continues to indicate a very high pollution burden within these communities. As discussed earlier, pollution and poor air quality in National City and the adjacent San Diego neighborhoods are the result of mobile sources such as heavy truck traffic

serving the port and along I -5 as well as stationary sources such as heavy industries. Harbor vehicles and activities at Naval Base San Diego also contribute. DPM, a known carcinogen, is an acute concern due to the wide variety of diesel-powered vehicles and equipment operated within and near the Portside Community. The census tr act within National City experiences DPM exposure that is greater than 91% of the census tracts in the state. As a result, measurable health impacts such as the number of residents suffering from asthma far exceed other communities.

The Portside Community is also disadvantaged economically with significantly higher rates of poverty and households that are cost-burdened with housing. Residents, are therefore, less likely to have the resources to pay additional costs associated with health problems, move to areas with less pollution exposure, or upgrade their residences with high quality air filters or other improvements that could improve their quality of life.

AB 617 was intended to be a community-driven program and the SDAPCD assisted with a robust community outreach and engagement initiative to help the Portside Community with the development a Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP). The plan was adopted in 2021.

As a member of the Steering Committee, the City of National City participated in the adopti on of this plan. The LCP Implementation Plan requires for the granting of a CDP that the permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City. Although the CERP is not an official plan of the City, staff strongly encou rages the consideration of this plan in determining the Project’s consistency due to the City’s direct participation in the CERP’s adoption.

As stated in the EIR, most of the action items associated with the CERP strategies direct agencies such as SANDAG, SDAPCD, and local cities to develop and implement the outlined strategies.

The document presents a pathway to reduced air pollution in the Portside Community, but some of the specific programs or projects necessary to do so still need to be worked out. Of the more concrete action items in the CERP, the EIR identifies adherence to truck routes as applicable to the fuel transfer facility project. A recommended Condition of Approval for this Project requires the applicant to provide an operations plan that identifies the truck routes all trucks servicing the facility are required to utilize.

Notable goals of the CERP include a reduction in DPM levels to 80% of baseline levels from 2018 by 2031 and 100% zero emissions vehicles for medium and heavy -duty trucks five years ahead of State requirements (currently 2045). The City of National City is identified in the CERP under the implementation responsibility of encourage prioritization of deployment of ZEVs. National City currently contributes funding to the operation of the Free Ride Around National City (FRANC) Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) on-demand shuttle service. National City’s most significant contribution to the CERP to date has been the continued planning and implementation of important active transportation projects.

While the proposed project can be found in conformance with the CERP based on the action and strategies listed in the pla n, it is also in conflict with the overall goals of the plan to reduce air pollution and improve health outcomes. 72 additional heavy -duty, diesel-powered trucks will be traversing the Portside Community should this project be approved in addition to emiss ions related to the on-site operations and movement of rail cars. While not significant according to the evaluation in the EIR, the project does contribute to an increase in emissions while the CERP was created with the intention to decrease emissions over time. Staff concludes that, despite the findings of insignificant impacts by the EIR, the proposed project is nevertheless not fully consistent with all plans the project would be subject to, based on the overall goals of the CERP.

Uniquely for this pro ject, there is also a conflict between two state laws that National City must contend with. While the project does not fully meet the aspirational goals of the CERP, it does help to achieve the goals of AB 32 through the LCFS program, as discussed under the “Alternative Fuels and Environmental Considerations” heading under the “Proposed Use” section above.

Other Considerations
As stated in the beginning of this staff report, the staff recommendation is the approval of this project subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached draft resolution. However, this recommendation is not fully based on the analysis above, which identifies concerns with the project’s consistency with the CERP, but also voluntary commitments made by the project applicant to provide community benefits. The project proponent, in addition to the construction and operation of the fuel transfer facility, has agreed to enter into an economic benefit agreement with the City of National City in the amount of $200,000 per year for the life of the project. This is included in the draft resolution as a Condition of Approval. Should these funds be added to the City’s General Fund, they could potentially be spent on pens ions, new hires, office supplies, or other resources related to the day -to-day operations of a municipality. However, staff is recommending that the applicant’s proposed economic benefit be directly used to implement strategies aimed at the reduction of em issions and the improving the quality of life within neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed facility. General Plan policies and programs related to urban greening, enhanced transit options, development of pedestrian and bike networks could all be fu nded or implemented using the economic benefit. As an example, the FRANC could receive consistent funding for the life of the proposed project to ensure continued operations, or even an expansion of the program. Another possibility would be funding the Cit y’s amortization program, which would allow for an accelerated timeline for the discontinuance of polluting business operating next door to residences in the Westside. Both programs are related to and further the goals of the CAP and the CERP.

Mailing
All property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property are required to be notified of a public hearing for CUP and CDP applications. Notice of this public hearing was sent to 122 occupants and owners.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 5.1 of the attached FEIR discusses the findings that, with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, impacts from the construction and/or operation of the proposed project would be reduced to below the level of significance or eliminated. Mitiga tion measures are included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All mitigation measures have also been included as separate Conditions of Approval in the draft resolution. Potential significant impacts from the project that were identified include the following:

Biological Resources
 Substantial Adverse Effect on any Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species o Direct impacts to Nuttall’s Acmispon (Acmispon Prostratus), a special status plant species, may occur as a result of the proposed project due to ground-disturbing and vegetation removal activities in the project area.
o There is a low likelihood of ospreys nesting within the project area or buffer of the project area, which use the nearby bay for foraging. Project activities could cause indirect impacts while under development.
o Palm trees within the project area may provide roosting habitats for bat species including the western yellow bat, a species of special concern. Direct impacts could result from ground-disturbing and vegetative removal activities. o The vegetation within the proposed project and infrastructure adjacent to the project area could provide nesting habitat for nesting birds and raptors and also provide foraging habitat for songbird and raptor species. Gro und-disturbing construction activities could directly affect protected birds and their nests through the removal of habitat on the proposed project, and indirectly through increased noise, ground vibrations, and increased human activity.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o At the time of submittal of the proposed project, the City’s CAP Update had not been completed. The project would need to incorporate all applicable actio ns from this adopted plan to demonstrate consistency with the City’s climate action planning efforts.

Tribal Cultural Resources
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object of cultural value to a California Native American tribe o A small area located in the southeastern portion of the project area is mapped as young alluvial floodplain deposits dating from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene.

The Holocene surface sediments are consistent with the strata that precontact archeological deposits have been previously identified and documented in the region.

Due to the presence of sediments contemporaneous with human occupation of the region and the presence of previously recorded precontact resources in the surrounding area and within the project area, the potential for subsurface resources in previously undisturbed soils is considered moderate. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to result in the discovery of, or inadvertent damage to, archaeological contexts.

The proposed mitigation measures include salvage of rare plants, pre-construction survey for nesting birds, compliance with tree-trimming procedures to ensure protection for roosting bats, compliance with specific GHG-reducing measures identified in the City’s CAP Update, and archaeological and Native American monitoring during construction activities.

Environmental Review Process
The applicant was advised by staff during preliminary application discussions that an Initial Study (IS) checklist would be required for the project submittal. Air quality was an early concern due to the number of diesel-powered trucks that would be serving the site. The project proposal originally called for 115 trucks entering the site daily, which was later reduced to 72. A completed IS was submitted along with a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The IS screened out the following resources that the project would have either a Less than Significant or No Impact finding: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Min eral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife. Due to the heavily urbanized nature of the City, potential impacts from most projects are likely to be narrow in scope.

In accordance with CEQA procedures, the draft MND documents were posted for public review and comment for 30 days beginning on June 2, 2023. Several comments were submitted including letters from San Diego Air Pollution Control Board (SDAPCD), the CCC, CARB, Caltrans, and the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC). Staff worked with the environmental consultant to address these comments in the draft MND, but ultimately it was decided that an EIR would be needed for the project with specific concerns about air quality, GHG emissions, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

As part of the review process and comment period for the EIR, the document was reviewed both internally and externally. Internal City reviews were done by the Planning Division and the City Attorney’s office. The EIR was also routed for external professional review by a neutral third party, who provided feedback and comment on the draft EIR. All comments were considered and addressed in the Final EIR document.

A scoping meeting was held for the DEIR on May 23, 2024 along with a 30-day comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and IS. At the scoping meeting 27 comment cards were submitted along with 11 comment letters from the comment period. These comments are summarized in the DEIR. The areas of controversy, or primary issued raised, were in regard to air quality, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation. The areas of biological resources, energy, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources were also evaluated for potential environmental effects from the proposed project. The EIR also analyzed project alternatives including a no project alternative, a reduced intensity alternative, and an offsite location alternative.

The DEIR was published on December 6, 2024, and had a 54 -day public review and comment period. An extended review period was provided due to the overlap with the City’s two-week holiday furlough. With the mitigation measures discussed above, the EIR determined that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the resources discussed in the report. In the analysis of project alternatives, the reduced intensity alternative was considered to be environmentally superior because it would decrease the magnitude of impacts. However, this alternative would not meet project objectives and the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. During the review period, seven comments letters were received. No subsequent changes were made to the EIR. Responses to the comment letters can be found in the FEIR.

Environmental Summary
Through an extensive review process conducted under CEQA, the proposed project has not been found to result in any significant environmental impacts with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. The EIR was prepared by an environmental professional and staff concurs with the findings in the report and supporting documents. While the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR at a public hearing on September 15, 2025, due to the appeal of the project denial, the City Council will be required to take action on the EIR. The draft resolution to certify the Final EIR is attached as Exhibit H and includes the same findings as the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission.

Recommended Findings for the CUP and CDP should City Council Approve the Appeal

Required Findings for Approval
The (previous) Municipal Code contains four required findings for CUPs:

1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape: The project is proposed for an approximately 7.5-acre site comprised of railroad right-of-way and adjacent property owned by BNSF railway. While the site exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone, only one small office structure is proposed with the majority of the site being occupied by new railways, pumping equipment to transfer fuel, and an appropriately-size paved service to allow for the ingress and egress of trucks. All proposed improvements adhere to minimum setback and site design requirements.

2. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use: The project location is on the west side of the City where adequate truck routes exist along Bay Marina Drive, Civic Center Drive, and Tidelands Avenue. Interstate 5 is directly accessible from these streets. In addition, the site has access from West 18th and West 19th Streets for ingress and egress of truck traffic. As a condition of approval, the West 18th Street right-of- way is required to be improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A traffic impact study was completed for the proposed project and the trip generation of the proposed use was determined to be minimal.

3. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties: The proposed project is an industrial use consistent with the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone description in the General Plan and will be subject to conditions of approval that ensure safe operation of the facility. Adjacent and abutting properties are occupied by similar industrial and manufacturing uses. As a condition of approval, the project is required to include a screening wall or fence and enhanced landscaping to reduce visual impacts. The project is also required to conform to all development standards and design guidelines of the MM zone, as well as all the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for this Project and incorporated as conditions in the CUP.

4. The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare:

The project proposes to further advance State goals to reduce the carbon-based emissions in the transportation sector. The proposed fuel transfer facility will bring approximately 13,800 barrels of biofuels to the regional market daily. Renewable biofuels can contribute to up to an 80% decrease in emissions from standard diesel fuel. The public will benefit from access to a cleaner-burning fuel as well as increased air quality and a reduction of GHG emissions.

The use is consistent with the MM zone description, which is intended for uses in areas in which activities involve some degree of noise, vibration, air pollution, radiation, glare phenomena, and/or fire and explosive hazards. In addition, the project proponent will enter into an economic benefit agreement with the City that will generate funds for the purpose of reducing emissions and improving the quality of life for residents.

In addition, projects in the Coastal Zone require two conditions related to CDPs:

1. The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City: The proposed use is permitted, subject to a CUP, by the Land Use Code, which is consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in the staff report, several policies in the Land Use, Transportation, Safety, Noise and Nuisance, Open Space and Agriculture, and Conservation and Sustainability Elements of the General Plan are being met by the project. The project, subject to the condition of approval related to the establishment of an economic development agreement, is consistent with the policies of the Health and Environmental Justice Element because the additional funds can be used for the implementation of policies and programs to reduce emissions and improve the welfare of residents in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed economic benefit can also be used to further the goals of the AB 617 Portside Community’s Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP). The project, subject to the approved mitigation measures requiring conformance with specific Climate Action Plan (CAP) policies, is also consistent with the CAP Update.

2. The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with and implements the Certified Local Coastal Program: The project is located in an area generally exempt from a Coastal Development Permit; involves a fuel storage and distribution use, which is conditionally allowed in the MM zone; and will not prohibit coastal access or obstruct views.

Department Comments and Conditions of Approval
Comments were received from t he Building Division, Engineering Department, and Fire Department. The Building Division provided a standard comment related to conformance with applicable codes, which is included as a condition of approval. The Engineering Department provided standard re quirements related to new developments and grading. Comments also addressed required right-of-way improvements for the proposed project, which are included as conditions of approval. The Fire Department provided comments related to required access and the design of fire -suppression equipment. Specialized equipment in the event of fire is also required due the presence of hazardous materials at the proposed facility. The Planning Division

has also included comments related to development standards and design requirements for new developments in the MM zone. Additional conditions are related to compliance with the mitigation measures required by the EIR, the project proponent’s economic benefit agreement, and operational standards for the proposed facility. Al l comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval as well as general conditions related to CUPs and CDPs and can be found in the attached draft resolution for approval.

Summary
The proposed project is a fuel transfer facility to be located on and adjacent to an existing BNSF railway that will help bring clean, renewable biofuels to the San Diego market. The project was evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the attached EIR and impacts were found to be less than significant with incorporation of the proposed fully enforceable mitigation measures. While the project will introduce new emissions from rail activity and up to 72 diesel-powered trucks entering the site daily, the emissions do not exceed applicable thresholds and can potentially be offset by other implementation measures identified in the City’s General Plan, CAP Update, and the AB 617 Portside Community CERP. The project proponent will be required to enter into an economic benefit agreement that could fund programs such as amortization or the Free Ride Around National City (FRANC).

Options for Certification of the EIR

1. Certify that the Final EIR for the Proposed Project has been completed and processed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; the City Council, as the decision-making body for the City, reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Proposed Project; and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis, based on findings included in the Resolution, or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

2. Find that the Final EIR for the Proposed Project has not been completed and processed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA based on findings to be determined by the City Council; or

3. Continue the item to a specific date in order to obtain additional information.

Options for the Appeal

1. Approve the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission decision, thereby approving 2023-03 CUP, CDP , subject to the conditions listed within the resolution to approve or modified conditions, and based on the findings listed in the resolution to approve , or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny 2023-03 CUP, CDP based on the Planning Commission findings as listed in the resolution to deny, or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

3. Continue the item to a specific date in order to obtain additional information.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Application fees in the amount of $5,602.50 was paid with the submittal of the subject CUP and CDP and costs associated with the preparation and review of supporting environmental documents were paid by the applicant at cost . An appeal fee of $1,500 was also paid by the applicant. Fees are anticipated to cover the cost of staff review time and processing of the permit.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Balanced Budget and Economic Development

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is a project under CEQA and requires full environmental review and the preparation of an environmental impact report. CCR 15362.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Overhead Map
Exhibit B – PC Resolution No. 2025-13
Exhibit C – PC Resolution No. 2025-14
Exhibit D – PC Public Comments
Exhibit E – Appeal Request Letter
Exhibit F – Exhibit A to the PC Report – Plans
Exhibit G – PowerPoint Slides from PC meeting
Exhibit H – Final EIR without Appendices –
Link to view the Appendices and Studies:
https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/url/FINALEIRSDCLEANFIELDSLLC Exhibit I – Resolution – CERTIFY EIR
Exhibit J – Resolution – AFFIRM APPEAL
Exhibit K – Resolution – DENY APPEAL

EXHIBIT A

2023-03 CUP, CDP, IS – Project Area – Overhead

N

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

From: Ted Godshalk
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Ted Godshalk
Subject: Comment for Item #3 for the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 2025 from Mr. Ted Godshalk Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:45:47 PM
Attachments: 90.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00063.htm
Untitled.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00066.htm
Detail-Pump-Over-Soybeans-Shutterstock.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00069.htm
Comments Regardng Scope of Draft EIR.doc
Untitled attachment 00072.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Comment for Item #3 for the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 2025 from Mr.

Ted Godshalk:

Commissioners,
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.

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-plant- still-stirring-up-opposition-from-barrio-logan-neighbors ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

EXHIBIT D

From: Claire Groebner
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment for 9/15: Fuel transfer facility Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 5:15:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good afternoon,
I'd like to submit a public comment for the 9/15 Planning Commission public hearing on the fuel transfer facility - USDG Fuels project.

My name is Claire Groebner and I am the Associate Director at Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center here in National City and a member of the National City Healthy Culturas Coalition. I am writing to urge the

Planning
Commission to recommend that the proposed USDG fuel transfer facility project be denied.

This Texas-based company’s project would concentrate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions from truck trips in West National City, where there is already a significant pollution burden and residents breathe more polluted air than 91% of the state. Diesel emissions are responsible for 85% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in National City and contribute to other adverse health outcomes including premature death, hospitalizations, and respiratory issues like asthma. Our community already experiences disproportionately higher levels of asthma hospitalization than other neighborhoods in San Diego because of high levels of pollution. In fact, the air quality data used in the project's EIR is from Sherman Heights - an area that we know has better air quality than Westside National City - and paints an inaccurate picture of the impact this proposed project would have on air quality and health - which will in reality compound on pre-existing poor quality.

The proposed project is less than 600ft from residential homes and within .3 miles from Kimball Elementary, St. Anthony Padua Church, and Paradise Creek Family Garden.

National City’s 2024 Climate Action Plan calls for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 2050. Key strategies include implementing and supporting the transition to electric vehicles - with a goal of 7% of light duty vehicles electric by 2030 and 100% light duty and 75% heavy duty electric by 2050. The City’s 2024 Land Use Element outlines guiding principles that include a commitment to Quality of Life and Health and Safety for residents - and includes policies and goals such as ‘Prioritizing the establishment of businesses owned and/or operated by National City residents’’ and ‘Encouraging and facilitating land uses that ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

are compatible and environmentally sustainable while avoiding those that are incompatible’.

Developing new infrastructure that continues the transport of GHG producing fuels is counterproductive to the goals we have set as a City both in the short and long term. Biofuels, while touted by USDG Fuels as an energy transition solution, have been shown to have significant negative environmental impacts. Either way - why should our community continue to bear the burden of pollution for the County? Is this what we want for National City? Let’s put our energy towards projects that actually improve the quality of life in our community - and the air that you and I, our kids, and families breathe every day.

On behalf of Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center, the National City Healthy Culturas Coalition, and myself - I ask that the Planning Commission take a stance for community health, defend the integrity of the city’s Health and Environmental Justice Element, Land Use Element, and Climate Action Plan; and reject the USDG Fuels project proposal.

Thank you,
Claire
--
Claire Groebner (she/her/hers/ella)
Associate Director
Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center
619-434-4281
www.olivewoodgardens.org
Celebrating 15 years of growth, impact, and community!
Acknowledging, honoring, and extending gratitude to the Kumeyaay peoples whose land we occupy.

Olivewood's mission is to nourish communities and cultivate a deep connection to the environment through nutrition education, sustainable urban agriculture, collective advocacy, and intergenerational leadership.

Olivewood is committed to Community-Centric Fundraising. Learn more about the 10 Principles and join us in the conversation!

From: Jake Zindulka
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission Hearing on 9/15/25 Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:04:52 PM
Attachments: Pre Read Packet UPDATED FINAL.pdf
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – San Diego Union-Tribune.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Planning Commission:

I strongly encourage you to deny the application for the following reasons:

The health risks associated with the project
significantly outweigh any potential benefit.

The project would result in 72 fuel trucks 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 also puts our
environment at risk due to truck accidents. 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
ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

community will be at risk of a similar accident
multiplied by 72 trucks by 365 days.

When the community asked the applicant about
risks associated with the trucks, they stated the
trucks will be operated by third-parties. 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, 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 claim they only intend to drive to
Highway 5, but nothing will prevent them from
driving throughout our city per the city's primary
truck route.

The Commission should promote a safe, healthy,
vibrant economy for the City. 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. 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. The City
should not allow outsiders to pollute our community
for their own gain.

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. Having a fuel transfer station and 72 trucks
on the streets every day will deter more healthy,
positive development in the area.

The fuel facility will likely not generate any
revenue for the City.

The Commission may be encouraged to approve the
project based on job opportunities for truck drivers.

But with the rapid growth of AI, truck companies
will likely pursue self-driving trucks in the near

future. This is likely to happen during the project's 30 year term.

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
(attached) prepared by the applicant that states they will pay $200,000 per year of the project. It appears City staff did not negotiate that amount. It is miniscule compared to how much the applicant will make from the project.

Thank you for your consideration and service to the
public.

Best,
Jake Zindulka
Westside Resident

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

San Diego Clean
Fuels Facility LLC
Project
Cleaner Air
through
Cleaner Fuels
delivered with
2,400,000 Fewer Truck
Miles/Year!
1

The National City Energy Transition Project
("The Project") will bring a clean fuels
transloading facility to an existing railroad
site in National City, helping California
achieve its stated goal of carbon neutrality by
2045 and improving air quality.

This project reduces overall truck traffic by approximately 2,400,000 miles per year by eliminating lengthy truck trips from LA/Inland Empire locations, resulting in the removal of the tailpipe emissions from the air in Southern California.

Every fuel railcar removes 3.6
trucks from our local highways.

National City
Energy
Transition
ProjectCleaner Air through Cleaner Fuels
X
USD Clean FuelsUSD Clean Fuels (USDCF) is a premier developer of clean fuels logistics solutions throughout North America. In National City, the vision is to create a solution for efficient delivery of clean fuels from producers in the U.S. Midwest and Gulf regions to local customers. USDCF is excited to play a key role in facilitating the energy transition to reduce carbon in California and throughout North America.

The ProjectThe Project will create a more efficient and sustainable logistics solution for low-carbon clean fuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol. These products are made from non- petroleum, renewable sources such as biomass, tallow, and used cooking oil. They replace fossil fuels and will minimize carbon emissions in public and personal transportation, off-road equipment, and other applications in National City and the surrounding area.

The facility will occupy a small footprint on an existing BNSF railroad site. An existing rail spur will be reconfigured, adding rail track for receiving, discharge, and unloading, four truck loading spots, and small equipment to transload cleaner fuels. The process of transferring product directly from railcars to trucks is referred to as “transloading” and eliminates the need for tanks and storage.

The railcar unloading and truck loading areas will be equipped with vapor controls that meet the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s requirements, spill containment, and fire safety features designated by the National City Fire Department. Construction impacts will be minimal.

Operations are controlled and safe. BNSF Railway will deliver railcars to the facility and place them on designated receiving tracks. Once safety checks are completed, facility operators will attach the railcars to a system of short pipes connected to small pumps and meters. As trucks arrive, they will connect a loading hose to their fuel trucks, load the clean fuels, then disconnect and depart to deliver their load. Once railcars are emptied, the railroad will remove cars and replace them with full ones as needed. Trucks will use city designated truck routes.
2

The National City Energy Transition Project will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas, carbon, and other air
emissions by:

Past FuturePresent
The facility will incorporate redundant containment and safety systems, such as:

Project Site Transformation
• Eliminating the need for approximately 2,400,000 miles of truck deliveries annually
• Using lower emissions rail transit to replace longer truck trips
• Reducing California’s reliance on fossil-based fuels
• Accelerating the availability of renewable fuels, offering lower emission fuels to the public and California’s
construction, industrial, and agricultural industries • Emergency shut-off valves with both automatic and manual triggers
• Special disconnect valves which prevent liquid from
escaping during the transloading process
• Drip pans located under each railcar offloading position • Containment basin to catch and isolate liquid in the
unlikely event of a release
• Facility firefighting sy stem approved by the National City Fire Department, including a Mobile Fire Fighting
Platform (Foam)
• Create 24 full-time, well-paying jobs, providing local employment opportunities
• Employ a highly skilled and trained construction
workforce
• Improve pedestrian and driver safety at Civic Center
Drive rail crossing by improving rail crossing signal
visibility, traffic direction control, and crosswalks
• Generate local buying power, using a property that
is only available for railroad use
Additional BenefitsThe project will:

Commitment to SafetyThe USD Clean Fuels team has operated fuels transloading facilities with zero reportable releases and zero recordable injuries since 2008. Its proven Safety Management System dictates how safety and environmental matters are managed in Project operations to protect operators, communities, and the environment. All facility operators will be trained in the facility’s Emergency Response Plan that will be created in consultation with local emergency responders to ensure effective
communication, training, and response in the unlikely event of a release, fire, or other emergency.

To learn more about USD Clean Fuels, visit usdcleanfuels.com Questions? Contact us at [email protected]
The Traffic Impact Study shows project-related traffic from construction and operation is well below the daily trip threshold for the region and is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The truck management pla n will also minimize impact by avoiding residential areas, schools, churches, and congested areas such as 24th street. Approximately 70% of the truck trips will occur between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM to avoid peak traffic periods.

Initial modeling using approved methods from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (S DAPCD) and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Ass essment (OEHHA)
demonstrates that all project-related construction and
operational emissions will be well below applicable emissions thresholds.

No Significant Traffic Impacts
Environmental Benefits
3

The USD Clean Fuels team has operated fuels transloading facilities with zero reportable releases and zero recordable injuries since 2008.  Proven Safety Management System to protect operators, communities, and the environment
 Emergency Response Plan will be developed in consultation with local emergency responders
 The facility will incorporate redundant containment and safety features:
- Emergency shut-off valves
- Dry break fittings
- Drip pans
- Containment basin
- Mobile Fire Fighting Platform (Foam)
Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
Commitment to Safety
usdcleanfuels.com
4

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
No Significant Traffic Impacts
usdcleanfuels.com
• Traffic Impact Study shows traffic is below applicable regional standards and consistent with the City’s General Plan
• Trucks will use city designated truck routes
• Truck management plan will minimize impacts by avoiding congested areas such as 24th street
• Most truck trips will occur during non-peak hours
C O PY R I G H T © 2024 U S D C L E A N F U E L S A LL R I G H T S R E S E R V E D P R I V I L E G E D A N D C O N F I D E N T I A L P A G E 1 National City - Truck Route
McKinley Ave.

Cleveland Ave.

Highway 5
W 19th St
Tidelands Ave.

Civi
cCenter Dr
.

Project Site
I-5 Exit
5

Helping California Achieve
Its Goal of Carbon Neutrality
usdcleanfuels.com
Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
• Small footprint – on an existing rail site
• Simple and safe transfer, directly from rail cars to trucks – no storage tanks • Safety improvements along Civic Center Drive
• Highly skilled and trained construction workforce
6

Other benefits include:
• Reduced emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment • Over 20 well-paying, full-time jobs
• Improvements to pedestrian and driver safety at Civic Center Drive Eliminates 2,400,000
Truck Miles per Year
This project reduces overall truck traffic
by approximately 2,400,000 miles per year
by eliminating lengthy truck trips from
LA/Inland Empire locations, resulting in
the removal of the tailpipe emissions from
the air in Southern California.

Every fuel railcar removes 3.6
trucks from our local highways.
usdcleanfuels.com Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
7 Page 340 of 833
Rail Eliminates More Than
25,000 Truck Round Trips per Year
usdcleanfuels.com Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
The Greater
San Diego Area
currently receives
trucks inbound from
the LA Basin and
Inland Empire regions
• PALM SPRINGS
• LOS ANGELES

LONG BEACH
•
• IRVINE
• USDCF Facility
• RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO
•
• OCEANSIDE
I-5 CORRIDOR
I-15 CORRIDOR
8

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]
• Clean fuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol, help achieve California’s air quality and greenhouse gas goals set by the California Air Resources Board.
• Clean fuels are manufactured from crop waste, animal fats, and used cooking oils.
• Clean fuels replace fossil fuels.

Clean fuels are an essential component of California’s
roadmap to reducing the effects of climate change.
usdcleanfuels.com
(Emphasis added. Source: https:/ /ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/first-time-50-california-diesel-fuel-replaced-clean-fuels) “As technological advances put a zero-emissions future within reach, the use of cleaner fuels offers an essential tool to reduce pollution now.

A 50% reduction in diesel means cleaner air, healthier communities, and a commitment to reaching carbon neutrality in California by 2045.” – Dr. Steven Cliff, Executive Officer
California Air Resources Board

9

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

Economic Benefit Details

USD Clean Fuels will provide funds to National City in
the amount of $200,000.00 per year -- for the life of the Project -- and for the purpose of implementing
strategies aimed at the reduction of emissions and
improving the quality of life within the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed facility.

The use of funds shall be dedicated to:
 Implementation of the goals and strategies found in
the AB 617 Portside Community’s approved
Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP)
 City’s approved Climate Action Plan (CAP)
 Other related policies stated in the City’s General
Plan
10

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

Appendix
11

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

Project Proximity
Closest School:

Kimball Elementary School
(across Interstate 5)
Closest Church:

St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church
(across Interstate 5)
Closest Apartment:

McKinley Apartments
12

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

EIR Summary

Basic Purposes of CEQA:

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15002 - General Concepts
(a) Basic Purposes of CEQA. The basic purposes of CEQA are to:
(1 ) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3 ) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4 ) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

As the EIR reflects, there are no significant impacts as a result of the San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project:
13

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

National City Outreach Efforts
Environmental Health Coalition –
Initiated meetings with EHC early in the EIR process.
 2/8/24: Met w Franco Garcia, Executive Director
 2/21/24: Met w EHC team members
Local Community/Public –
Conducted a Community Open House to enable community members/residents to meet the USDCF team members and learn more about the Project.
 8/14/24: Evening event and dinner held at the National City Ramada Hotel City and Local Government –
Conducted various meetings and calls w key government officials early in the EIR process.  2/2/24: Met w Mayor Ron Morrison
 2/7/24: Met w Councilmember Ditas Yamane
 2/9/24: Met w Councilmember Jose Rodriguez
 2/16/24: Call with Councilmember Luz Molina
 2/21/24: Met w Councilmember Jose Rodriguez
 2/21/24: Met w Mayor Ron Morrison
 2/22/24: Met w Councilmember Ditas Yamane
 2/22/24: Met w Councilmember Marcus Bush
 3/11/24: Met w Councilmember Luz Molina
 4/25/24: Met w Councilmember Jose Rodriguez
 10/30/24: Attended National City Council Candidate Forum  11/15/24: Met w Councilmember Marcus Bush
 1/15/25: Met w Mayor Ron Morrison
 4/19/25: Attended Councilmember Ditas Yamane’s Community Dist Meeting Industry Trade Groups and Associations –
Conducted various meetings and calls w key industry and trade group stakeholders.  6/6/24: Call w the Union Laborers
 1/15/25: Met w Kelvin Barrios, Union Political Director for Local 89  1/28/25: Presented the Project at the AB 617 Portside Community Steering Committee Meeting  4/10/25: Presented the Project to the National City Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Committee 14

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

California Supports Renewable Fuels

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB)
 CARB August 2023 Press Release: “As technological advances put a zero-emissions future within reach, the use of cleaner fuels offers an essential tool to reduce pollution now,” said California Air Resources Board Executive Officer, Dr.

Steven Cliff. “A 50% reduction in diesel means cleaner air, healthier communities and a commitment to reaching carbon neutrality in California by 2045.”
 CARB 2022 Scoping Plan (The Scoping Plan is CA’s formal plan to reduce GHG emissions to reach net neutrality goals),

must continue to support low-carbon liquid fuels during this period of transition and for much harder sectors for ZEV technology such as aviation, locomotives, and marine applications. Biomethane currently displaces fossil fuels in transportation and will largely be needed for hard-to-decarbonize sectors but will likely continue to play a targeted role in some fleets while the transportation sector transitions to ZEVs.”  Liane Randolph, Chair, CA Air Resources Board: “In order for us to be successful in addressing climate change, we must drastically reduce our fossil fuel usage and grow the low carbon energy supplies we need…We need to also make sure that low-carbon fuels are available to support this transition both in the coming years and in the next two decades.” – CARB September 2023 Board Meeting
 Dr. Steven Cliff, Executive Officer, CA Air Resources Board: “California is receiving significant volumes of low carbon fuels…including renewable diesel, low carbon intensity electricity, biomethane, and hydrogen. These fuels displaced nearly four billion gallons of petroleum fuel in 2022 alone.” & “We now have over half of our diesel demand being met by non-petroleum based diesel alternatives…and its bringing real climate and air quality benefits to the state.” – CARB September 2023 Board Meeting
 CARB Air Pollution Specialist: “Even with an unprecedented and rapid transition to zero-emission vehicles, we will still have some remaining demand for liquid fuels in the transportation system, given the legacy combustion vehicles, aviation, and potentially some off-road that will continue operating in the State through 2045…low carbon alternative liquid fuels [that] reduce the greenhouse gases from the State’s remaining combustion vehicles.” – CARB September 2023 Board Meeting

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC)
 August 17 2023 CEC Transportation Fuels Assessment Workshop, CEC Staff Comment: “State policies will set the stage for the last new internal combustion engine passenger vehicle to be sold in 2035, and only ZEVs will enter the market as new cars move forward from there. That being said, there will remain many internal combustion engine vehicles…in the state for decades to come. Even under the most aggressive scenario, we anticipate about 16 million ICE’s on the road in 2035. These cars will need fuel, and it’s the responsibility of the CEC to ensure that we have access to affordable fuels.”  CEC Website: “California’s transportation sector accounts for about 50 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, nearly 80 percent of nitrogen oxide pollution, and 90 percent of diesel particulate matter pollution.

Transitioning the transportation sector to low-carbon fuels…is critical to achieving climate change goals and clean air standards.”
15

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
El Cajon 2 months after crash
Agency says they keep finding more
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 away to be treated at landfills on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024 in El Cajon, California. (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.

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: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment 9/15/25
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:59:39 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). For this reason, I hope you DENY the application.

Thank you for your time.

ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Note our new address!
Cindy Fleming, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
FLEMING ALLIANCE ARCHITECTURE, INC.

Dana Point, CA  92629
www.FlemingAlliance.com
From: Cindy Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Martin Reeder <[email protected]>; Bill Frerking ; Kevin Laborne Cc: Ron Percival
Subject: RE: Appeal of PC denial info
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Thank you, Martin -
San Diego Clean Fuels LLC would like to appeal last night’s decision on Resolution 2025-14 as we do not believe that the findings for denial are accurate.

Findings for Denial of the Conditional Use Permit
#1 asserts that the facility is not essential or desirable because there are cleaner methods of delivery of the clean fuels.  We do not believe that the cleaner methods mentioned are practically available at the current time. #2 indicates that the project would be detrimental to the public in the vicinity due to the anticipation that the ‘last mile’ delivery trucks will be petroleum diesel fueled and contribute to negative air quality in the area.  Given that the truck operators are hauling renewable diesel, it would make sense that these truck operators would use the fuel that they haul.  Furthermore, USD Clean Fuels was willing to accept a condition that these vehicles would be required to use renewable diesel within a reasonable period of time after the facility is operational; making this finding void.  It should also be noted that the EIR found air quality impacts based on petroleum diesel truck emissions as is required for air quality modeling, to be less than significant.

Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit
#1 says that the project is in conflict with the Community Emissions Reduction Plan because it increases the number of diesel trucks within the Portside Community.  Again, the finding’s concern is based on the trucks using petroleum diesel rather than renewable diesel.  Furthermore, these short haul delivery truck trips replace long haul carriers, improving the air quality in the entire area.  If the short haul trucks are conditioned to use renewable diesel fuel instead of petroleum diesel, the air quality is improved still further.

Attached is the payment authorization for the appeal.

We appreciate the work you and David have done on this project and look forward to the opportunity to present to the City Council.

Sincerely,

EXHIBIT E

WAT WAT WAT
WAT
WAT

WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT
WAT

WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT
WAT

WAT WAT WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT

TUG TUG TUG TUG
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>

UGP UGP UGP
G

OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP

OHP OHP

OHP OHP
OHP

OHP OHP OHP

OHP OHP OHP
OHP
OHP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT
Exhibit A:

Case File No.: 2023-03 CUP, CDP, IS
Date: 2/19/2024

EXHIBIT F

WATWATWAT
WAT

WATWATWATWATWATWATWAT
WAT
WAT

WATWATWATWATWATWATWAT
WAT
WAT

WATWATWATWATWATWATWAT
WAT
WAT

WATWATWAT
WAT
WAT

WATWATWATTUGTUGTUGTUG
TUG
TUG

TUGTUGTUGTUG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP
OHP
OHP
OHP
OHPOHP
OHP
OHP
OHP
OHP
OHP
OHP
OHP

WATWATWATWAT

WATWATWATWATWAT

WATWATWATWAT

WATWATWATWAT

WATWATWATWATWAT

ALLEY
19TH STREET
18TH STREET

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

XXXXXXX X

X X X X
X
X X X
X
X X X
E E

WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT

WAT WAT WAT WAT
H
Y D
VW

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP
WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT
WAT
WATWAT
WAT
ALLEY
19TH STREET
18TH STREET

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION

TAP CONNECTIONTAP CONNECTION
XXXX

X X X X
X

X X X X
E E

WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT

WAT WAT WAT
H
Y D
V W

TUG TUG TUG
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP
WAT
WAT
WATWAT
WAT
Underground Service Alert
Call: TOLL FREE

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800
227-2600

PLANTING
L-4.01
PLAN

www.rpala.com

CALIFORNIA
11/15/22
21310
AP

Public Hearing

CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL IMPACT

REPORT TO ASSESS PROJECT IMPACTS

AND CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROVAL

OF A CUP AND CDP FOR A PROPOSED

FUEL TRANSFER FACILITY
2023-03 CUP, CDP, IS

EXHIBIT G

Overhead

Site Characteristics
Project site
 Approximately 7.5 acres in size
 Extends between BNSF rail crossings at Civic Center Drive and West 19th Street  Includes existing BNSF railway and adjacent BNSF-owned property between West 18th and 19th Streets  A portion of the site, intended to accommodate new rail spurs, is a DTSC clean up site (Pacific Steel, Inc.)  Clean up substantially completed in project area
 Site is former industrial, mostly disturbed land
 Rail crossing at Civic Center Drive is intended to be improved Surrounding area
 Mostly industrial/manufacturing
 Tourist-supporting commercial uses to the south
 McKinley Apartments 380 feet to the east
 Single-family homes approximately 900 feet to the south  Port and Navy activities
 Nearest school is across I-5 to the east
 Railway freight in San Diego traverses the region north/south via Orange County

Site Photos

Site Photos

Proposal
The applicant (San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC) proposes to construct a transloading facility for renewable fuels
Fuel would be transferred from rail cars to trucks for delivery to service stations within the San Diego market
A small 512-square foot office building will be constructed on site. Additional rail spurs and an expanded rail crossing at Civic Center Drive will accommodate the added rail activity.
Operations would be 24 hours a day with trucks primarily entering the site during off-peak traffic hours (6:00 pm to 6:00 am)
The maximum number of trucks entering the site daily will be 72 and the throughput capacity of the facility will be 13,800 barrels of fuel per day.
Proposed safety measures include a fuel containment basin and a fire-fighting platform

Proposal
The applicant (San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC) has stated the following objectives:
Contribute to the State’s transition to carbon neutrality via GHG reductions from renewable fuels Expand availability of renewable fuels and solve geographic imbalances for access Lower emissions in the existing supply chain by utilizing rail Increase speed of delivery to market
Generate employment opportunities in National City
Develop underutilized properties while minimizing conflict with existing uses Provide an appropriately-sized facility that balances business performance with minimized truck trips Have direct access to I-5
Improve infrastructure to meet project needs (BNSF rail) Additional firefighting capacity to allow for quick response to hazards

Proposal
Additional physical improvements include:
Construction of railway tracks and turnouts/crossovers to facilitate car movement Installation of concrete slab pump pads at each transload spot Installation of truck load slabs sloped to drain at each transload spot Installation of pumps and piping to move fuels from rail cars to truck loading spots Containment enclosures for additive totes
All weather paving for the facility
Lighting, as needed

Alternative Fuels
Project is a response to implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and subsequent State legislation, which requires major reductions of GHG emissions California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted Low Carbon Fuel Standard as an interim measure while zero-emissions technology continues to advance
Project would deliver alternative biofuels to market, which are renewable diesel, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)
Products can be produced with new or recycled vegetable oils, animal fats, greases, algae, as well as crop residues or woody biomass.
Renewable diesel and SAFs are also designated as “drop-in” biofuels, which do not require modifications to existing engines.
Renewable diesel can reduce GHG emissions by up to 80%

Environmental Considerations
A reduction in emissions at the regional level does not necessarily translate to a reduction at the local level Multiple efforts have been made within the City to improved health outcomes and reduce air pollutants including:
Adoption of the Westside Specific Plan
Amortization Program
Early adoption of a Health and Environmental Justice Element within the General Plan Designation of the AB 617 Portside Community and adoption of the Community Emission Reduction Plan (CERP)
Adoption of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
The project proposes utilization of diesel-powered truck trips for facility operation Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was requested

Plans

EXPANDED CROSSING

NEW RAIL SPURS

TRANSFER FACILITY

Plans

RAIL CAR UNLOADING

NEW RAIL SPURS

TRANSFER FACILITY
OFFICE

TRUCK LOADING
EGRESS

INGRESS

Plans - Office

Plans – Conceptual Landscape

Analysis
The proposed project requests the approval of a fuel transfer facility, which is a permitted use in the MM zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). All discretionary projects located in the Coastal Zone (CZ) also require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The approval of a CDP is also appealable to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
Areas within the CZ are subject to development regulations listed in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan, which references sections of the previous Land Use Code. The project was analyzed for impacts, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The certification of the EIR for this project will be considered separately. There are four findings for the approval of CUP under the previous land use code:
 The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape.  The site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use.  The proposed use with not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties.  The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare.

Analysis (cont.)
There are also two findings for the approval of CDP under the LCP:
 The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City.
 The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with and implements the Certified Local Coastal Program.
Staff reviewed policies in the General Plan, LCP, and CAP Update that pertain to the proposed project. The project was reviewed for compliance with regulations in the (previous) LUC. Staff also reviewed policies in the AB 617 Portside Community’s Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP).

Analysis – General Plan
Land Use Element policies
 Policy LU-1.3 – urban greening efforts
 LU-4.2 – pedestrian-scale urban design strategies
 LU-4.4 – maintenance of sidewalks and bicycle routes
 LU-5.3 – encourages business to employ National City residents  LU-6.2 – requires development to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plans  LU-6.5 – pertains to consistency with the City’s CAP
Typically, projects are analyzed for their consistency with various codes and policies, which are addressed in the staff report.
Additional consideration was given for this project related to implementation of specific goals due to a proposed economic benefit.
Staff also highlighted policies related specific project concerns discussed in the EIR Right-of-way improvements

Analysis – General Plan
Transportation Element policies
 Policy T-3.6 – enhanced transit service
 T-8.1 – infrastructure enhancements to facilitate timely movement of goods, particularly intermodal transfers  T-8.4 – pertains to movement of goods by rail
 T-9.4 – noise and pollution abatement associated with goods movement The project ensures that the delivery of fuel will be conducted in an efficient manner through improved rail crossings, operational standards, and a location near major truck routes. Truck routes are designed to largely avoid residential properties and other sensitive uses.

Analysis – General Plan
Safety Element policies
 Policy S-7.3 – pertains to the ability to effectively respond to hazardous materials emergencies  S-8.1 – pertains to the clean-up and reuse of contaminated sites The project includes a specialized firefighting platform and addition fire hydrants. The proposed site is a vacant, under-utilized, and previously contaminated.

Analysis – General Plan
Noise and Nuisance Element policies
 Policies NN-1.9, NN-1.10, NN-2.5, NN-3.1, NN-3.3, and NN-3.4 – pertain to impacts related to noise levels and ground borne vibrations via construction, on-site activities and off-site transportation.  NN-4.2 – related to the reduction in offensive odors and other noxious substances Noise and nuisance impacts were evaluated int EIR. A Noise Analysis determined that the City’s Noise Ordinance would be adhered to.
Conditions of approval include adherence to truck routes and a six-foot high, solid fence or wall to reduce potential impacts to adjacent and nearby properties, and adherence to San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) rules related to nuisance odors.

Analysis – General Plan
Open Space and Agriculture Element policies
 Generally, the preservation of open spaces, habitat, biological resources, and environmental sensitive areas.  OS-1.3 – encourages the planning of shade trees with substantial canopies.  OS-8.4 and OS-8.8 – pertain to the preservation of historic and cultural resources Mitigation measures included in the EIR pertain to the above. Recommended conditions of approval includes enhanced landscaping with additional tree canopy. Initial analysis provided with the draft EIR discussed “Feature 3”, which had dried algal mats. Comment letters discussed this feature as a potential wetland, while the EIR described it as essentially a puddle.

Analysis – General Plan
Conservation and Sustainability Element policies
 Policy CS-1.1 pertains to the reduction of the urban heat island effect.  CS-1.2 – encourages the development of industries that benefit the environment.  CS-3.1 – pertains to stormwater best management practices (BMPs). As discussed, enhanced street tree canopy is recommended by staff. The project proposed to transfer cleaner fuel options that will benefit local and regional air quality. Stormwater treatment is required by the Engineering Department for new development projects.

Analysis – General Plan
Health and Environmental Justice (HEJ) Element policies  Policy HEJ-1.2 states “consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with land use decisions” “reduce adverse health effects of hazardous materials, industrial activities, and other undesirable land use on residents regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location”.
 HEJ-1.5 – promotes the inclusion of potentially affected community residents in the decision-making process.  HEJ-2.5 – encourages the protection of existing sensitive land uses through feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pollution.
 HEJ-2.6 – consider air quality impacts, including cumulative impacts, from existing and new development. As discussed, enhanced street tree canopy is recommended by staff. The project proposed to transfer cleaner fuel options that will benefit local and regional air quality. Stormwater treatment is required by the Engineering Department for new development projects.

Analysis – General Plan (HEJ-1.2)
The HEJ, while ahead of its time, takes a more suggestive approach (i.e. consider, encourage, promote).

Implementation is not clear and better served by succeeding documents. There is no question about the presence of EJ communities. The HEJ discusses long-standing health issues in the community. This is also discussed in the more recently approved Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) and the EIR.
The EIR included assessments on health concerns related to the proposed industrial use and increased truck traffic. Cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and acute health hazards were analyzed and found to be less than significant. However, the HEJ policy seeks to reduce such hazards.

Analysis – General Plan (HEJ-1.5)
This policy promotes the inclusion of potentially affected residents in the decision-making process. Tonight is the first formal public hearing in the process with the potential for later hearings. The decision of Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council, which could also request a hearing. The project is also appealable to the CCC. Notices sent in conformance with the Brown Act. The public has also had several initial opportunities to discuss this project:
 A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for public review on June 2, 2023. Several comments were received, which ultimately led to a City request for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The District 1 City Councilmember Luz Molina requested that staff present information on the project at town halls in September and October of 2023. There was already significant public interest in this project at this time.  A scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on May 23, 2024. This was the first meeting with the public, which was focused solely on the preparation of the EIR. 38 comments were submitted at this time.  The applicant collaborated with Councilmember Molina to host a community open house on August 14, 2024.  Staff in constant email communication with interested parties and updates from non-City sources.  Current projects webpage has been updated throughout the process  June 2nd public hearing delayed based on CCC concerns  Applicant had additional meetings discussed in the pre-read packet

Analysis – General Plan (HEJ-2.5)
Encourages the protection of sensitive land uses through feasible measures. Conditions of approval include enhanced landscaping and screening. Economic benefit

Analysis – General Plan (HEJ-2.6)
Similar to HEJ-1.2.
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.

Analysis – Local Coastal Program (LCP)
and Coastal Act
Project is in the CZ and requires approval of a CDP.
Planning received a letter on June 2nd from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) with concerns on the following:
 Jurisdiction: appealable action based on wetland/public noticing  “Major energy facility”
 10 working days after notice of final action (City Council)  Allowable use in a wetland: a wetland delineation was comple ted in July that determined there is not wetland on site.  Environmental justice (EJ): Concerns about the level of EJ analysis in the staff report (CCC has an adopted EJ policy).  Coastal Hazards: Sea level rise (SLR) analysis was incomplete. The project has an anticipated 30-year lifetime, but could be operated much longer. Project impacts begin at an increase in sea level of 2.5 feet combined with a 100-year storm.
 Condition of approval terminating the CDP at 30 years unless further study is conducted.  Impacts to track infrastructure maintained by BNSF would occur much earlier than the transfer facility

Analysis – Local Coastal Program (LCP)
and Coastal Act
The City’s LCP is comprised of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. Updates to the Land Use Plan were certified by the CCC in August of 2024.
 Chapters in the Land Use Plan address public access, recreation, marsh preservation, visual resources, industrial development, and environmental hazards.
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act also includes policies related to the following:
 Public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, and industrial development. The policies of the LCP and Coastal Act largely overlap. The proposed project has little to no effect in most instances:
 The project is located in an industrial zone and does not require or impede coastal access.  The LCP provides for recreational amenities elsewhere in the CZ.  The marine environment would be protected by storm water management practices.  Land resources would be unaffected with mitigation (monitoring programs)  Site is visually degraded in current condition and new development will include screening

Analysis – Land Use Code (LUC)
Implementation of LUC standards still with the previous version. Site is within the MM zone
 The storage and distribution of oil-based products is permitted with the approval of a CUP. Development standards:
 Site is sufficient in size and all setbacks are adhered to.  Proposed office will be reviewed and permitted as a permanent structure. Improved material required per Section

18.18.240 of the previous LUC.
 Proposal is well below maximum height and floor area ratio for the zone.  Staff is recommending increased screening due to the industrial nature of the equipment.  No parking required due to AB 2097; applicant is providing five spaces including one EV-ready.  Screening of mechanical equipment, outdoor lighting, and appropriate storage of trash and recycling are also required

Analysis – Non-Conforming Uses
Environmental concerns are increased in National City due to past land use decisions.  Sensitive receptors exist in the MM zone such as the McKinley Apartments.  Industrial and other polluting businesses are widespread in the Westside Specific Plan area.  In both instances, properties would not be able to be redeveloped with their current uses.  Current land use incompatibilities should decrease over time.  An amortization program exists to expedite this process and two nonconforming businesses have been amortized to date.
 The amortization program has not had dedicated staff or funding.

Analysis – Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was first adopted in 2011 and updated in 2023. The purpose of the CAP is to align with State goals related to the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Current goals are to reduce emissions 40% from 2018 baseline levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050 (City and State).
The proposed project will result in approximately 282 metric tons/year of GHG during construction and 1,633 metric tons/year during operation. Almost all emissions will be from mobile sources (truck and rail).  This amount is below the significance threshold recommended in the CAP.  The fuel delivered by the project could reduce emissions by up to 70% over standard diesel.  The project does not exceed the intensity of use for the types of development that would be permitted on the subject site.
 Mitigation Measure (GHG-1) was incorporated in the EIR to ensure consistency with CAP strategies.  Other strategies could potentially benefit from funding.

Analysis – Community Emissions
Reduction Plan (CERP)
State Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) was passed in 2017 to create community-focused and community-driven action to reduce air pollution and improved public health. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) nominated the Portside Community, which includes portions of National City and the City of San Diego. At the time, the communities were in the 85th percentile or above using the State’s CalEnviroScreen tool.
Pollution and poor air quality within the Portside Community are the result of mobile sources such as heavy truck traffic and stationary sources such as heavy industries. Diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen, is of acute concern due to the wide variety of diesel- powered vehicles and equipment operated in the area.
Residents in the Portside Community experience higher rates of poverty and are less likely to have resources to pay the additional costs associated with health problems caused by pollution. This community-driven plan is not an official plan of the City, but staff strongly encourages the consideration of the CERP due to the City’s direct participation in the adoption.

Analysis – Community Emissions
Reduction Plan (CERP)
While the primary goal of the CERP is to reduce emissions in the community, most of the action items direct agencies to develop and implement the outlined strategies in the plan. The document provides a pathway to reduced air pollution, but specific programs projects necessary to do so still need to be worked out. One of the more concrete action items is adherence to truck routes, which is included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
Notable goals of the CERP include an 80% reduction in DPM levels and 100% adoption of zero emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks five years ahead of the State. The City’s contributions to date consist of support for the Free Ride Around National City (FRANC) program and the implementation of active transportation projects. The proposed project adheres to the action items found in the CERP, but it does present a conflict with the over-arching goals of the plan. The project does contribute to an increase in emissions while the CERP has the intention of decreasing emissions.

Analysis – Conflict between State laws
Under AB 32, the State has passed Low Carbon Fuel Standards to reduce GHG under interim measures Under AB 617, the State is encouraging the reduction of emissions within the Portside Community

Analysis – Other Considerations
Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. The analysis to this point does not fully address concerns with consistency with the CERP, which has stated goals related to emissions reductions.
The applicant has voluntarily committed to providing an economic benefit to the City of National City in the amount of $200,000 annually for the life of the project. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that directs the use of these funds to implement strategies aimed a the reduction of emissions and improving the quality of life within neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed facility.
 Potential uses could include direct assistance such as providing air filters to sensitive receptors, urban greening efforts, implementation of active transportation projects, continued operation of the FRANC, or the amortization of polluting businesses.

California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
Staff is recommending a resolution certifying the Final EIR for the project, which will be considered before the CUP and CDP.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was originally drafted for this project and posted for public review.

After received several comments, the City requested the preparation of an EIR. A scoping meeting was held on May 23, 2024 for the EIR at which comments were received. The public review period for the Draft EIR was December 6, 2024 through January 29, 2025. Responses to comments on the Draft EIR are included in the Final EIR. No significant changes to the EIR or Mitigation Measures were made as a result of comments received. All documents were prepared by an environmental consultant.

California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
The following were identified as potentially significant impacts from the project during the environmental review:
 Biological Resources
 Impacts to Nuttall’s Acmispon, a special status plant species  Impacts to nesting ospreys
 Impacts to roosting bats
 Potential habitat for nesting birds
 Mitigation measures are included to provide protections for all of the above instances  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Potential conflict with the City’s CAP Update (project was incomplete during the review process)  Mitigation measures are included for consistency with the CAP  Tribal Cultural Resources
 A small area of the site includes mapped deposits that could retain archeological artifacts  Mitigation measures are included for site monitoring during construction activities

Comments
The Building Division provided standard comments for adherence to applicable codes. The Engineering Department provided standard comments related to new developments and grading.

Comments also addressed required right-of-way improvements, which were forwarded to the applicant. The Fire Department provided comments related to required access and the design of fire-suppression equipment. Specialized equipment will be required due to the presence of hazardous materials. The Planning Division provided comments related to adherence to development standards in the MM zone.
Mitigation Measures required by the EIR are included in the conditions of approval. Conditions also address operational standards of the proposed facility (e.g. amount of product transferred, number of truck trips, economic benefit, adherence to truck routes, etc.)

Summary
The proposed project is a fuel transfer facility to be located on and adjacent to existing BNSF railway. Up to 72 diesel-powered trucks may enter the site each day. The project will provide access to cleaner, alternative diesel fuels. An EIR was prepared and no significant impacts were identified with Mitigation Measures in place. The applicant is volunteering to enter into an economic benefit agreement with the City.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SAN DIEGO CLEAN FUELS FACILITY LLC PROJECT
October 2025
Lead Agency:

City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, California 91950

Prepared for:

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

ECORP Consulting, Inc.
3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92108

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc. ii October 2025
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project 2021-285

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Project Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Project Timing ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3

3.0 Comments and Responses ......................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Errata 4-1

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Project Clarification ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ............................................................................. 5-3

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2 Purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan .......................................................... 5-3

5.3 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ......................................................................................... 5-3

6.0 List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendix A – San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Draft EIR (November 2024) Appendix B – Response to California Coastal Commission Request for Information

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
1-1 October 2025
2021-285

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), for the San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project (Proposed Project). It has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.), as amended.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 lists required contents for a Final EIR. The Final EIR shall consist of:
 The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
 Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.  A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.  The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
 Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

1.2 Final EIR Contents
The City of National City (City) is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. This Final EIR document supplements the Draft EIR released for public review. On December 6, 2024, the City distributed the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project to public agencies and the general public for review and comment. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a 54-day review period, which ended on January 29 , 2025, was completed. Seven comment letters were received. This Final EIR and MMRP document is organized as follows:
 Section 1.0 provides a discussion of the purpose of the document and discusses the structure of the document;
 Section 2.0 contains a summary of the project description;  Section 3.0 includes any comment letters received and responses to these comments;  Section 4.0 includes the errata to address correction and clarifications made to the Draft EIR  Section 5.0 contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP); and  Section 6.0 includes the appendices.

This Final EIR and MMRP document and the Draft EIR (Appendix A) together constitute the environmental document record for the Proposed Project.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
2-1 October 2025
2021-285

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Project Location
The San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project is located in San Diego County in the City of National City.

The Project Area is located between the existing buildings along Cleveland Avenue and the existing BNSF Railway tracks and between Civic Center Drive and West 19th Street. The Project Area is approximately

6.5 acres and is primarily unimproved and undeveloped. The site address is 830 West 18th Street.

2.2 Project Characteristics
The new San Diego Clean Fuels Facility will reconfigure one existing rail spur and add truck loading spots to transload clean renewable and biofuels (renewable diesel, ethanol, and sustainable aviation fuel [SAF]) directly from rail cars into trucks. The delivered fuels will remain in the rail cars until they are transloaded.

No stationary above- or below-ground fuel storage tanks are included as part of the Project. Each truck loading spot will consist of a pump skid, controls, and an above ground manifold system with piping between the belly of the rail cars and the bottom loading port of the truck. Small amounts of lubricity, conductivity, and red dye will be added in-line to renewable diesel fuels during the transload process depending on customer specifications. The lubricity, conductivity, and red dye would be stored onsite in three 330-gallon totes. The rail car unloading and truck loading areas will be equipped with a 37,700- gallon concrete containment basin capable of containing the contents of 110 percent of an entire rail car volume. A Facility Response Plan (FRP) will be developed and implemented to address and/or manage potential spills or emergency events onsite. Additionally, an Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fluorine Free Firefighting platform with additional fire hydrants will be positioned onsite to use in case of fire. This firefighting platform will also be available for use by the City’s fire department to addre ss and respond to hazards and emergencies within this core industrial area.

Rail cars will be delivered to the facility by the adjacent BNSF Railway and placed directly on designated receiving tracks. Normal maximum capacity will be 21 rail cars that hold a total of approximately 630,000 gallons of product. Normal total daily throughput when the facility is operating will be approximately 579,600 gallons per day. Once the rail cars have been delivered by BNSF Railway, the cars will be switched and spotted for transloading by Plastic Express (PEX), the commercial operator of the facility. After completing the quality and quantity assurance requirements for the product in each rail car, facility operators will unload the fuel commodities directly from the rail cars into trucks via a short above ground manifold system. The transfer volume will be approximately 13,800 barrels of fuel per day or 402 gallons per minute. Once emptied, the railroad will remove and replace cars with full ones as needed.

The proposed transloading facility consists of the following improvements:
 Build tracks and turnouts/crossovers to facilitate car movement in/out and within the transload facility.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
2-2 October 2025
2021-285

 Install concrete slab pump pads at each transload spot.  Install truck load slabs sloped to a drain in the center at each transload spot.  Install pumps and piping to move fuels from rail cars to truck loading spots.  Provide containment enclosures for additive totes.
 Provide a concrete lined containment basin and pipe each load slab drain to the basin.  Provide track pans for containment at the rail transloading cars.  Provide an office trailer with control center, restrooms, and driver check-in area.  Provide all weather paving for the facility and circulation.  Provide lighting for the site as needed.

The Proposed Project would also provide infrastructure improvements at the Civic Center Drive rail crossing, which include improved rail crossing sign visibility, traffic direction control, and crosswalks. These improvements enhance the area for the purposes of the Project by providing offsite adjacent improvements and improve safety at the BNSF crossing for vehicles and pedestrians.

2.3 Project Background
The current supply chain transports fuel for the San Diego market by rail from the Midwest and Texas and then over 100 miles via trucks from the Los Angeles-Inland Empire region to serve the San Diego area.

With this Project, the fuel will be delivered via truck to local retailers within a 35-mile radius.

Through the California Legislature and the governor’s executive agencies, the citizens of California have set the requirements for California air quality and established the programs and tools for achieving those requirements. The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is transforming the entire transportation sector in the state by raising demand for biodiesel, renewable diesel, low carbon ethanol, electric vehicles, renewable natural gas, E85 higher ethanol blends, and sustainable aviation fuels, among other low carbon transportation fuels. By maximizing the contributions of all these renewable fuels, studies published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Energy Commission have concluded that greater carbon emission reductions are achievable (CARB 2018).

2.4 Project Purpose and Objectives
USD Clean Fuels (USD-CF) proposes to construct a transloading facility on the BNSF Railway railroad right- of-way (ROW) and adjacent BNSF-owned property. The Project Area is approximately 6.5 acres and is primarily unimproved and undeveloped. The area was formerly used for railroad and industrial purposes.

A portion of the Project Area contains four closed release cases; one open release case is located on the adjoining/adjacent properties. The open remediation case is the Pacific Steel Incorporated (PSI) property located adjacent and east of the Project Area at 1700 Cleveland Avenue. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has completed site remediation for the PSI property.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
2-3 October 2025
2021-285

The purpose of the Project is to provide a new transloading facility along the BNSF Railroad to deliver renewable fuels to the San Diego market. Upon development, the Proposed Project would achieve the following objectives by:
 facilitating the State’s commitment to achieve a just and equitable transition to carbon neutrality by 2045 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030;  expanding the availability of renewable fuels to the region by advancing the goal of the State’s Low-Carbon Fuels Standard, which is a component of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, and solving geographic imbalances in the availability of cleaner, lower carbon fuels;  delivering lower emissions to the San Diego market by significantly reducing fuel transit truck miles compared with the existing supply chain delivering to the current fuel delivery locations;  increasing the availability of cleaner fuels sooner than the current supply chain;  creating employment-generating opportunities for the citizens of National City and the surrounding communities;
 encouraging industrial development as compatible and productive uses within existing underutilized and previously contaminated property while minimizing conflicts with the surrounding existing uses;
 providing an appropriately sized facility that balances meeting business performance metrics and minimizing the total truck trips needed to deliver renewable fuels to the San Diego market;  locating the facility in an appropriately zoned area of the City that would minimize conflicts with surrounding incompatible uses and utilize established City truck routes that provide direct access to Interstate 5 (I-5);
 providing infrastructure improvements required to meet Project needs and improve safety conditions along the BNSF railroad; and
 providing additional firefighting capacity in the Project Area to address and provide quick responses to hazards and emergencies within the City’s core industrial area.

2.5 Project Timing
Construction is anticipated to begin December 2025 and take approximately 6 months to complete.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-1 October 2025
2021-285

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The 54-day public review period began on December 6, 2024, and ended on January 29, 2025. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to consider comments received during the review period.

The City received seven comment letters on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Table 3-1 presents a list of those agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR.

Table 3-1. Draft EIR Public Comment Letters
Letter Date Individual/Organization Page
1 1/23/2025 San Diego Air Pollution Control District 3-2 2 1/27/2025 Jake Zindulka 3-11
3 1/27/2025 Ted Godshalk 3-14
4 1/27/2025 California Air Resources Board 3-21
5 1/29/2025 California Coastal Commission 3-42
6 1/29/2025 Eric Suarez 3-57
7 1/29/2025 Environmental Health Coalition 3-64
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City has evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from agencies and other interested parties and has prepared written responses to each comment pertinent to the adequacy of the environmental analyses contained in the draft EIR. In compliance with Section 15088(b) of State CEQA Guidelines, the written responses address the environmental issues raised. A copy of each comment letter is provided, and responses to each comment letter immediately follow.

No comments have prompted changes to the text of the draft EIR, which would be referenced in this chapter would be shown in the Chapter 4, Errata.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-2 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 1 – San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-3 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 1 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-4 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 1 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-5 October 2025
2021-285

Response to San Diego County Air Pollution Control District – Letter 1 Response to Comment 1-1:

Comment 1-1 states the only alternative Project location evaluated was also located within a Portside Environmental Justice Community. SDAPCD recommends analysis of other potential project locations outside the Portside Community.

In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the Draft EIR considered a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.

Under CEQA, not every conceivable alternative needs to be considered; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the Project that will foster informed dec ision making and public participation. As described in Section 5.3.1 of the Draft EIR, Alternative Location Outside of National City, the City considered alternative locations within and outside of both the City limits and Portside Communities along both Union Pacific and BNSF rail lines. The siting of fuel transfer facilities of this magnitude requires a substantial flat area large enough to accommodate multiple rail cars queued off of the railroad mainline or primary rail spur so as to not obstruct other rail activity. Along the Union Pacific line, the nearest potential site was located near the City of El Centro in Imperial County. This site is owned by Union Pacific, is adjacent to the Union Pacific rail line, and is appropriately sized and zoned for this type of project. However, the El Centro site would not meet the Project’s objectives to significantly reduce fuel transit truck miles or to create employment opportunities in National City. No other BNSF -owned properties that exist within the target market area were identified.

A reasonable attempt was made to identify an alternative location outside of the City that meets most of the basic Project objectives and property requirements such as being rail-owned, rail adjacent, adequately sized to accommodate the required throughput, and appropriately zoned to accommodate this type of project. Alternative locations considered were either unavailable for development, would not feasibly accommodate a project such as the Proposed Project, or would not reduce any significant impacts because none are identified for the Proposed Project. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-2:

In this comment SDAPCD strongly recommends that the Draft EIR explicitly state that permits for the facility will include conditions to limit truck trips and/or impose throughput limitations for all fuels transferred at the proposed facility.

As part of the Project approvals, the City will establish throughput limitations on all fuels transferred at the proposed facility consistent with the information submitted by the Applicant on the Project’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. The throughput amount in the Applicant’s CUP application is what is analyzed in this Draft EIR. Any change to throughput needed at the facility and any proposed increase in

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-6 October 2025
2021-285

throughput of the Proposed Project will require that the Applicant undergo a new application process. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-3:

Comment 1-3 states the Draft EIR lacks sufficient information to substantiate the less -than-significant conclusion for odors associated with project operation. SDPCD recommends evaluating ongoing compliance with regulatory requirements designed to prevent public nuisances, as listed in the link provided in the letter.

Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). As described in the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project, during construction the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources. Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would not adversely affect a substantial number of people to odor emissions.

According to the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), the sources of the most common operational odor complaints received by local air districts include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. The Project does not contain any of the land uses identified as typically associated with emissions of objectionable odors. Furthermore, the Proposed Project does not include the manufacture of any fuels. The delivered fuels will remain in the rail cars until they are transloaded. No stationary above - or below-ground fuel storage tanks are included as part of the Project. The Project involves the transloading of clean renewable and biofuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, and sustainable aviation fuels. These fuels are generally less odorous than conventional petroleum-based fuels. Unlike facilities handling raw crude oil or refining operations, the Project does not involve processes that emit high levels of sulfur compounds or volatile hydrocarbons commonly associated with strong odors.

SDAPCD’s Rule 51 (Nuisance) prohibits emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause injury or damage to business or property.

SDAPCD implements a nuisance complaint program to address violations of emissions of air contaminants including smoke, dust, and odors. If a nuisance source of emissions is verified by a SDAPCD inspector, a Notice to Comply/Notice of Violation is issued and the issue must be resolved. Additionally, trucks which will be serving the site are required to comply with the CARB five-minute idling rule which restricts idling for more than five minutes within 100 feet of homes, schools, hospitals, senior care facilities, and childcare facilities. None of these uses are located within 100 feet of the Project Area. As stated on page 3.1 -12 of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 51 (Nuisance), which prohibits emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-7 October 2025
2021-285

annoyance to a considerable number of people or the public. Additionally, the fuel will remain in rail cars until transloaded, eliminating the need for large onsite storage tanks that could be potential sources of odor. The facility will adhere to all SDAPCD regulatory requirements, ensuring that any potential odor concerns are promptly addressed through ongoing compliance and enforcement measures. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-4:

Comment 1-4 summarizes the Project’s total daily heavy-duty truck trips and passenger automobile trips.

No response is needed.

Response to Comment 1-5:

Comment 1-5 states the Portside Community has a disproportionate air quality burden due to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. DPM poses health risks such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. This comment states the Portside Community experiences heightened health risks from cumulative DPM exposure. To mitigate exposure and align with the Portside Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) goals, the SDAPCD recommends the evaluation of zero-emission vehicles, trucks, and locomotives for projects in the Portside Community. The comment also provides a link to the Portside Environmental Justice CERP.

The commenter raises concerns about the Projects alignment with California’s goal of transitioning to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to reduce the generation of toxic air pollutants and their associated health risk as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Project directly supports the state’s goal to further reduce toxic air pollutants. As stated on page 3.1-10 of the Draft EIR, the CARB approved amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off-Road Regulation) in 2022, which are aimed at further reducing emissions from the off-road sector. The amendments require fleets to phase- out use of the oldest and highest polluting off-road diesel vehicles in California; prohibit the addition of high- emitting vehicles to a fleet; and require the use of R99 or R100 renewable diesel in off-road diesel vehicles. Off-road vehicles that are subject to the amended rule are used in construction, mining, industrial operations, and other industries. The amended rule went into effect in January 2024. A ccording to CARB (In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation), the amended rule will reduce harmful air pollutants from over 150,000 in-use off-road diesel vehicles that operate in California and is expected to yield $5.7 billion in health benefits, prevent more than 570 air -quality related deaths and nearly 200 hospitalizations and emergency room visits from 2023 to 2038. From 2024 through 2038, the current amendments will generate an additional reduction to the current regulation of approximately 31,087 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 2,717 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

About half of the additional reduction associated with the amended rule is expected to be realized within the first five years of implementation. Moreover, as described on page 3.1-18 of the Draft EIR the Proposed Project’s distribution of renewable diesel in the San Diego Area would result in reductions in local air pollutants from the replacement of combustion of regular diesel with renewable diesel.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-8 October 2025
2021-285

More specifically, for every 1,000 gallons of conventional diesel replaced with renewable diesel, combustion emissions of NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) would be reduced by

43.5, 28.5, and 0.7 pounds, respectively. As shown on page 3.1-18 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project enables the delivery of 336,000 gallons per day of R100 renewable diesel to replace existing CARB diesel at local retail stations, which would result in the following local tailpipe emission reductions:
• 5.3 million pounds of NOx emissions per year
• 3.5 million pounds of CO emissions per year
• 460 thousand pounds of total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions per year • 90 thousand pounds of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions per year.

Additionally, the Project would reduce overall truck mileage by approximately 2 million miles per year by eliminating lengthy truck trips from Los Angeles/Inland Empire locations, which would remove the following regional tailpipe emissions from the supply chain:
• 7 million pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year • 74 thousand pounds of NOx emissions per year
• 26 thousand pounds of CO emissions per year
• 10 thousand pounds of THC emissions per year
• 8 hundred pounds of DPM emissions per year
Additionally, the Project supports the state’s long-term GHG reduction strategies by facilitating the use of renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel, all of which serve as lower -carbon alternatives to conventional petroleum-based fuels. The Project would help reduce transportation-related GHG emissions immediately by shortening fuel transport distances and replacing higher -emission conventional fuels with low-carbon renewable fuels, consistent with the objectives of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As stated on page 3.4-11 of the Draft EIR, renewable diesel alone can reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 70 percent compared to traditional diesel, providing substantial benefits in the near term while ZEV adoption continues to scale.

While the transition to ZEVs is a critical component of California’s long-term air toxic-reduction and decarbonization strategy, the technology is not yet widely available or feasible for heavy -duty trucks and locomotives at the scale required to replace all fossil fuel use. The CARB Scoping Plan acknowledges the need for multiple clean fuel solutions in the transportation sector, particularly in applications where electrification remains technically or economically challenging. The Project does not conflict with or delay the adoption of ZEVs but rather serves as an intermediate step in achieving state-mandated emissions reductions, ensuring immediate environmental benefits while ZEV infrastructure and technology continue to develop. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-6:

The commenter states that “Tables B10-B13 of the Draft EIR provide information regarding onsite emissions from stationary source equipment.” The commentor also expresses concern with the percentage of fugitive loss (leaks) used in the analysis and refers to pages 94, 128, and 129 of the Draft

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-9 October 2025
2021-285

EIR. As a point in clarification, Tables B-10 – B-13 are contained within an Attachment to Appendix B of the Draft EIR (“Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the San Diego Clean Fuels Facility, LLC Project”) and provide contaminant specifications and emissions associated with the fuel residuals left in fuel transfer equipment as a result of the fuel transfer of three different fuel types. The commenter references page 94 of the Draft EIR indicating this is where information on vapor colle ction efficiency is identified and also references pages 128-129 indicating this is where an assumption is provided that indicates there would be a 1 percent residual diesel volume left in rail cars from previous loads.

It is noted that the toxic air emissions from fugitive losses were properly accounted for and provided in the emissions inventory. As identified on page 99 of the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Appendix B of the Draft EIR) and correctly noted by the commenter, according to EPA AP-42 section 5.2 “Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids,” trucks passing the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) level annual leak test are assumed to have a collection efficiency of

98.7 percent across the collection system. The models of trucks being used at the new facility are used at a similar site by the same owner and are required to pass the NSPS-level annual leak test at this facility.

Similarly, this Project would require current proof of passing this required leak test for each truck that loads at the facility. As stated on page 3.1-23 of the Draft EIR, small amounts of toxic air contaminants emitted from residual fossil fuels in transfer equipment and “worst case” gasoline contents in the ethanol transferred are included in the Project’s emissions inventory. Residual fossil fuels accounted for in the analysis are not part of the Project; they are a conservative assumption of the amount of product leftover from facility operations. It should be noted that the trucks picking up fuel must either show proof that their last fuel load was the same (bio or renewable diesel) or that they have had a certified washout since their last fuel load. Modern unloading systems are designed to ensure maximum recovery of fuel, reducing the potential for residual diesel to remain in the rail cars. Thus, a residual diesel fuel estimate of 1 percent of capacity is appropriate. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-7:

The comment suggests that the analysis of acute impacts from diesel combustion should include all speciated components of DPM. However, the health risk assessment prepared for the Proposed Project follows the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015) and CARB Non-Vehicular Diesel Engine Risk Assessment Guidance (2024), both of which classify DPM as a toxic air contaminant and do not require further speciation for health risk assessments.

The analysis uses HARP2, developed by CARB, which integrates OEHHA's health risk factors for DPM, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of acute, chronic, and cancer risks associated with diesel emissions.

Furthermore, DPM emissions were modeled as coarse particulate matter (PM 10) in HARP2, which is
consistent with statewide regulatory methods for health risk assessments, including those conducted under CEQA. This approach also accounts for real-world truck activity, incorporating variations in truck

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-10 October 2025
2021-285

speeds and onsite idling, which provides a more refined and accurate emissions profile than using default emission factors. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 1-8:

Comment 1-8 states the title above Table B-14 should be labeled “Train Transport” rather than “Switching Activity”.

The title of Table B-14, contained within an Attachment to Appendix B of the Draft EIR (“Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the San Diego Clean Fuels Facility, LLC Project”), is “Operational Assumptions for Train Transport of Liquid Fuels”. No edit is needed.

Response to Comment 1-9:

The comment suggests that the emissions reported under Table B-17 (Daily Emissions from Train Transport of Clean Fuels) should be “0.017 lbs/hr” rather than “0.002 lbs/hr.” The calculations presented in Table B-17 were reviewed and it was confirmed that the reported value of 0.002 lbs/hr was derived using the appropriate emission factors (see Tables B-14 and B15), train activity data, and modeling inputs specific to the Project’s operations. The calculation accounts for switching activity emissions, including material weight and trip distance.

Response to Comment 1-10:

The comment suggests that Table B-18 (Annual Emissions from Train Transport of Clean Fuels) reports emissions in pounds per year (lbs/yr) but labels them as “tpy” (tons per year). Table B -18 was reviewed and it was confirmed that the emissions are correctly labeled. Equation No. 2 above Table B -17 shows the calculation used in Table B-18. Annual Emissions (tons/yr) = Material Weight (tons/yr) * Trip Distance (mi) * / (ton-miles/gallon) / 453.6 (g/lb).

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-11 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 2 – Jake Zindulka

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-12 October 2025
2021-285

Response to Jake Zindulka – Letter 2:

Response to Comment 2-1:

This comment states the EIR fails to assess the environmental impact associated with the risk of truck accidents involving trucks leaving the proposed facility. This comment states there is significant risk of fuel affecting nearby protected areas (Paradise Marsh, the Marina, and San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge) in the case of a fuel truck accident. The commenter also describes a fuel truck accident in the City of El Cajon in 2024.

An evaluation of truck accidents that could occur offsite away from the Project Site are beyond the scope of the Draft EIR. As described in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR, each truck loading spot includes a concrete pad and drain for the containment of potential spills, which would be piped to an onsite 37,700 -gallon containment basin located on the southern portion of the Project Area. The rail car and truck unloading area would be equipped with a containment system capable of containing the contents of 110 percent of an entire rail car volume until the material can be evacuated, transported, and disposed of. As further described in this section, a Facility Response Plan (FRP) has been developed and will be implemented to address or manage potential spills or emergency events onsite to minimize hazards to human health and the environment (CURA 2024).

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans (40 CFR 112.7) are required for certain oil storage facilities to prevent oil discharges into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. A project is subject to SPCC requirements if the facility (1) is non-transportation related or for construction, the construction operations involve storing, using, transferring, or otherwise handling oil; (2) could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon navigable Waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines; and (3) has a total buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons or aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons. The SPCC Plans should address oil storage container capacity, discharge prevention measures; discharge or drainage controls; countermeasures for discharge discovery, response, and cleanup; and disposal methods for recovered materials.

The FRP is designed to complement the SPCC Plan prepared for this facility. The SPCC Plan is incorporated by reference in the FRP. The SPCC Plan would minimize the potential for a petroleum spill, prevent any spill from reaching navigable waterways, and ensure that the spill’s causes are corrected.

The Draft EIR further provides information described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has established strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported in connection with Project activities would be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations. The Applicant’s motor carrier terminal access program ensures that only USDOT -compliant drivers will serve the facility. Furthermore, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 704 diamond system provides basic information to firefighters, emergency responders, and other personnel with and easily recognized system for identifying specific hazards and their severity usin g spatial, visual and

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-13 October 2025
2021-285

numerical methods to describe the relative hazards of a material. This is a diamond -shaped sign with four smaller quadrants/diamonds inside. One diamond is blue, one is red, one is yellow and one is white. The diamond-shaped signs use the four color-coded categories to give a general idea of the hazards that personnel or observers are exposed to in any specific area. The number in each inner quadrant represents the hazard rating for each of the 3 categories. Each material is assigned a rating in these three categories:
health (blue), flammability (red), and instability (yellow). The white box is reserved for special hazards such as water reactivity, oxidizers or simple asphyxiant gases. The health, flammability, and instability ratings of a material vary according to its physical and chemical characteristics. The ratings are 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, with 4, indicating severe hazard or extreme danger, to 0, indicating no required warning is necessary. The NFPA 704 diamond labeling system is a universal standard and best practice that is widely implemented in the industry.

The FRP prepared for the Project is designed to minimize hazards to human health and the environment created by onsite spills involving petroleum, oils, and lubricants or hazardous substances. The FRP complies with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations under 40 CFR 112 Subpart D.

However, the transport of hazardous materials by trucks is regulated by federal safety standards under the jurisdiction of the USDOT. As described in Title 49 of the CFR and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR, the USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has established strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 2-2:

This comment states the EIR fails to consider alternative locations outside of National City, including several areas between National City and the current transfer station.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1-1.

Response to Comment 2-3:

This comment states the 25 percent reduction alternative in the Draft EIR fails to address why the input/output cannot be reduced by more than 25 percent.

In discussions with the Applicant, the Project’s throughput was reduced by approximately 50 percent. The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in a further 25 percent reduction in the number of barrels of fuel transloaded per day and reduce the total amount of Project truck trips. A 25 percent reduction was considered as it would incrementally reduce the magnitude of impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, energy, and transportation; still meet many of the Project’s objectives; and be a reasonable, feasible, and viable alternative to the Proposed Project. As stated in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR, of the alternatives considered, the EIR need examine in detail only those the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. CEQA Guidelines Sect ion 15364, define “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” A reduction in an amount exceeding

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-14 October 2025
2021-285

more than 25 percent would reduce the daily throughput such that the Project would not meet most project objectives and would not be a viable option. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-15 October 2025
2021-285

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-16 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 3 – Ted Godshalk

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-17 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 3 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-18 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 3 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-19 October 2025
2021-285

Response to Ted Godshalk – Letter 3:

Response to Comment 3-1:

The commenter summarizes that the Draft EIR failed to address several key components to protect the health and living conditions of the National City residents and cites other commenters that have submitted concerns. The commenter asserts the City should not certify the Draft EIR.

This comment is noted. No response is necessary.

Response to Comment 3-2:

The commenter states concurrence with CARB’s comment letter expressing concern about the Project’s potential to increase heavy-duty truck and locomotive trips in the Portside Community. The commenter asserts the Proposed Project should not be allowed due to the 1,525 metric tons of CO 2 that would be contributed annually that cannot be avoided. This comment states Mitigation Measure GHG -1 would not ensure compatibility with GHG reduction plans because BNSF, the Project operator, and independent truck drivers have no motivation or incentive to limit truck idling, truck trips, or vehicle miles driven.

As discussed in Section 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, construction and operational emissions would not exceed the numeric bright-line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO 2e annually. The
Draft EIR appropriately applies the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) interim GHG significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year, a widely recognized threshold for evaluating land use projects. As stated on page 3.4-8 of the Draft EIR, neither the SDAPCD nor the City of National City identifies a numeric GHG significance threshold. In the absence of such a threshold the analysis employs the SCAQMD significance threshold due to the proximities of the South Coast Air Basin and the San Diego Air Basin. The commenter’s statement that BNSF, the Project operator, and independent truck drivers would not adhere to the GHG measures outlined in GHG-1 due to lack of motivation or incentive is speculative and discouraged in CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5)). No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment
Response to Comment 3-3:

This comment states that the Draft EIR has not addressed rail pollution.

Air quality and GHG emissions for the train are addressed in Sections 3.1 Air Quality and 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. All Project-related emission sources were included in the analysis and determined to be less than significant.

Response to Comment 3-4:

The commenter states the only mitigation for the Project’s air quality and health impact is to locate the Project along the BNSF rail line in a non-residential area.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-20 October 2025
2021-285

As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.4 of the Draft EIR, no significant air quality or GHG impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The proposed Project Area is located on land designated as industrial and zoned for Medium Manufacturing and Heavy Manufacturing and surrounded by industrial and manufacturing uses. The nearest residential use is the McKinley Apartments, approximately 380 feet east of the Project Area, which are located within the City’s Medium Manufacturing zone. The nearest residential zone within the City is the light manufacturing/residential zone, located east of Interstate 5.

Response to Comment 3-5:

This comment states that Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR does not address spills, fires, explosions, and other accidents by railcar, train engine, or diesel truck on any streets near the Project Area to and from the Project.

Please refer to Response to Comment 2-1.

Response to Comment 3-6:

The commenter states the public is unaware of any plan for incidents on City property, Port District properties, or Navy properties in the area. The comment states the Draft EIR has not adequately addressed the possible emergency scenarios. The comment also describes the July 2020 fire incident on the USS Bonhomme Richard.

As stated in Section 3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the topic of adopted emergency plans or emergency evacuation plans was addressed in the Project’s Initial Study. Primary evacuation routes for the County include I-5 which is located east of the Project Area. Construction staging would be contained to the Project Area and passage along roadways would be maintained during construction. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 3-7:

Comment 3-7 states that although the Project’s distribution of renewable diesel would result in a reduction of local air pollutants, there will be unavoidable impacts to air quality from truck -generated diesel pollutants, increased noise at night, and heavier traffic in the area.

As described in Section 3.1 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, all Project-related emission sources were included in the analysis and determined to be less than significant. There are no significant and unavoidable air quality impacts attributable to the Proposed Project.

As described in Section 3.7 Noise of the Draft EIR, construction noise is prohibited on weekdays from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or anytime on weekends or holidays. Operational onsite stationary noise sources include railway activity, internal circulation of trucks, and unloading of rail cars. The Project Area is located on an active rail network in a heavily developed, industrial area. The level of noise within the Project Area would not increase significantly when compared to existing conditions. The Project would result in a total of 385

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-21 October 2025
2021-285

daily passenger car equivalent trips on roadways with an existing average daily traffic count of 3,600 vehicles. Therefore, operational offsite traffic noise increases would not be perceptible as the Project would not result in a substantial increase in mobile noise sources.

As described in Section 3.8 Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project is expected to generate 385 passenger car equivalent daily trips which does not exceed the lower 500 average daily trips (ADT) for projects consistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, there would be less than 50 passenger car equivalent trips during the AM and PM peak hours. The Proposed Project would not res ult in significantly heavier traffic in the area. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 3-8:

Comment 3-8 states the Draft EIR has inadequately addressed the noise issue as rail operators are not required to limit the number of trains on its track. The commenter states it is possible to hear two or more trains running simultaneously.

As stated in Section 3.7 Noise of the Draft EIR, noise from rail activity along the BNSF mainline currently exists and is part of the existing condition. Two or more trains would not run simultaneously under the Proposed Project due to physical limitation in the width of the mainline tracks right -of-way in the Project Area. According to the Federal Transit Administration, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. A 10 dBA increase is perceived by the human ear as a doubling in loudness. Therefore, if two identical sources are heard at once, the resulting noise level would not be perceived as a doubling in loudness as the increase would only be 3 dB higher in this scenario. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 3-9:

Comment 3-9 is directed at the City’s Planning Department and lack of enforcement methods, policies, procedures, and personnel to enforce truck routes. The commenter states there should be discussions about enforcement and fines and the conclusion should be that the Draft EIR does not protect the community from these impacts.

This comment is beyond the scope of the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project. No further response is necessary.

Response to Comment 3-10:

The commenter states the No Project Alternative falsely claims the property would remain largely vacant.

The commenter suggests developing the property with multi-story, market rate, and affordable housing for civilian and military households. This comment states that if housing is built on this site, GHG emissions could be avoided with fewer vehicle miles traveled to work by people living just outside the base.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-22 October 2025
2021-285

Historical aerial imagery shows that the site has remained vacant since approximately 2018. The Project Area is located in an industrial area, has a land use designation of Industrial, and is zoned as Medium Manufacturing and Heavy Manufacturing. Housing is not an allowable use within these zones.

Additionally, a Standard Voluntary Agreement (SVA) and the Land Use Covenant between DTSC and BNSF restrict the BNSF parcels from residential uses. The land meets the criteria for commercial/industrial uses, and not residential uses, as specified in the Interim Measure Workplan (IMW). The property is owned by BNSF and is intended for commercial/industrial use. Development of residential uses would result in a land use conflicts by placing residences adjacent to incompatible uses. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 3-11:

This comment states the Draft EIR has not considered a range of possible offsite alternatives. The commenter suggests moving the project away from residential areas such as in areas along the railroad in San Diego County. The commenter suggests an alternative site to analyze.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1-1.

The site proposed by the commenter is within the Military Facilities planning area and within Miramar Marine Corps Air Station property and not available for private development. The parcels north of the commenter’s proposed site along Miramar Road are near an existing rail spur that serves several warehouse type uses. This area includes parcels zoned as Commercial Community (CC -4-2) and Industrial Light (IL-2-1). Trucking and transportation terminals are not allowed within the CC zone but are permitted uses within the IL zone. The parcels zoned for industrial use are rail adjacent and appropriately zoned, but are not adequately sized to accommodate the proposed throughput and are not rail-owned. Furthermore, these properties are currently occupied and not available for redevelopment.

No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 3-12:

The commenter states the Draft EIR requires careful study of the specifics of the operations, an understanding of BNSF’s past and present business practices, and the history of toxics in the City. The commenter requests that the City Planning Commission and City Council not certify the Draft EIR and deny all permits.

This comment is noted. No further response is necessary.

Response to Comment 3-13:

This comment provides a map of the alternative location proposed by the commenter in Comment 3 -11.

The proposed alternative location is marked by a grey star. No response to this comment is necessary.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-23 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – California Air Resources Board

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-24 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-25 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-26 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-27 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-28 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-29 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-30 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-31 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-32 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-33 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-34 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-35 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-36 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 4 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-37 October 2025
2021-285

Response to California Air Resources Board – Letter 4:

Response to Comment 4-1:

The commenter summarizes the Proposed Project as well as the contents of a CARB letter submitted during the Project Notice of Preparation process, dated June 7, 2024. The comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and mentions concerns with the potential health risks associated with the construction and operation of the Project. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 4- 3 (trip distance) and 4-4 (truck trips).

Response to Comment 4-2:

The commenter expresses concern regarding potential air quality impacts from the Project on nearby sensitive receptors in the Portside Community, a disadvantaged community designated under Assembly Bill (AB) 617. This concern highlights the proximity of residences and schools to the Project Site, as well as the potential for cumulative impacts from existing sources of DPM) in the area. Additionally, the commenter references Executive Order N-79-20 and the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, encouraging the use of zero-emission technologies to mitigate these impacts. Nonetheless, the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

It is noted that the Project directly supports the state’s goal to further reduce toxic air pollutants. As stated on page 3.1-10 of the Draft EIR, CARB approved amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off-Road Regulation) in 2022, which are aimed at further reducing emissions from the off-road sector. The amendments require fleets to phase-out use of the oldest and highest polluting off- road diesel vehicles in California; prohibit the addition of high-emitting vehicles to a fleet; and require the use of R99 or R100 renewable diesel in off-road diesel vehicles. Off-road vehicles that are subject to the amended rule are used in construction, mining, industrial operations, and other industries. The amended rule went into effect in January 2024. According to CARB (In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation), the amended rule will reduce harmful air pollutants from over 150,000 in-use off-road diesel vehicles that operate in California and is expected to yield $5.7 billion in health benefits, prevent more than 570 air - quality related deaths and nearly 200 hospitalizations and emergency room visits from 2023 to 2038.

From 2024 through 2038, the current amendments will generate an additional reduction to the current regulation of approximately 31,087 tons of NOx and 2,717 tons of PM2.5. About half of the additional reduction associated with the amended rule is expected to be realized within the first five years of implementation. Moreover, as described on page 3.1-18 of the Draft EIR the Proposed Project’s distribution of renewable diesel in the San Diego Area would result in reductions in local air pollutants from the replacement of combustion of regular diesel with renewable diesel. More specifically, for every 1,000 gallons of conventional diesel replaced with renewable diesel, combustion emissions of NOx, CO, and PM would be reduced by 43.5, 28.5, and 0.7 pounds, respectively. As shown on page 3.1 -18 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project enables the delivery of 336,000 gallons per day of R100 renewable diesel

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-38 October 2025
2021-285

to replace existing CARB diesel at local retail stations, which would result in the following local tailpipe emission reductions:
• 5.3 million pounds of NOx emissions per year
• 3.5 million pounds of CO emissions per year
• 460 thousand pounds of total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions per year • 90 thousand pounds of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions per year.

Additionally, the Project would reduce overall truck mileage by approximately 2 million miles per year by eliminating lengthy truck trips from Los Angeles/Inland Empire locations, which would remove the following regional tailpipe emissions from the supply chain:
• 7 million pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year • 74 thousand pounds of NOx emissions per year
• 26 thousand pounds of CO emissions per year
• 10 thousand pounds of THC emissions per year
• 8 hundred pounds of DPM emissions per year
Additionally, the Project supports the state’s long-term GHG reduction strategies by facilitating the use of renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel, all of which serve as lower -carbon alternatives to conventional petroleum-based fuels. The Project helps reduce transportation-related GHG emissions immediately by shortening fuel transport distances and replacing higher -emission conventional fuels with low-carbon renewable fuels, consistent with the objectives of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As stated on page 3.4-11 of the Draft EIR, renewable diesel alone can reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 70 percent compared to traditional diesel, providing substantial benefits in the near term while ZEV adoption continues to scale.

While the transition to ZEVs is a critical component of California’s long-term air toxic-reduction and decarbonization strategy, the technology is not yet widely available or feasible for heavy -duty trucks and locomotives at the scale required to replace all fossil fuel use. The CARB Scoping Plan acknowledges the need for multiple clean fuel solutions in the transportation sector, particularly in applications where electrification remains technically or economically challenging. The Project does not conflict with or delay the adoption of ZEVs but rather serves as an intermediate step in achieving state-mandated emissions reductions, ensuring immediate environmental benefits while ZEV infrastructure and technology continue to develop.

The commenter raises concerns about the health risks posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, including the Portside Community. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) conducted for the Project follows methodologies outlined by the OEHHA and the SDAPCD. The analysis demonstrates that health risks are below established thresholds of significance. Specifically, the maximum cancer risk for a 70 -year residential exposure scenario is 9.00 per million, and for a 30-year exposure scenario is 7.63 per million (updated per comment 4.4), both of which fall below the 10 per million threshold. Additionally, the chronic and acute hazard indices for non-carcinogenic risks are well below the threshold of 1.0, indicating no anticipated adverse health effects. The health risk calculations account for emissions from DPM,

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-39 October 2025
2021-285

including truck and train activity, onsite and offsite sources, and heavy-duty truck idling and fuel transfer.

No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 4-3:

The commenter raises concerns regarding the assumption of a 12.3-mile average trip length for trucks serving the Project within the emissions calculation modeling, suggesting it may underestimate mobile source air pollutant emissions. The 12.3-mile average trip distance was determined based on the intended operational characteristics of the Project and is considered a conservative estimate as the fuel distributed by the Project would serve local retailers within the surrounding area. While the traffic study identifies a maximum trip distance of 35 miles, the average trip length reflects the proximity of the Project’s primary service area. While accounting for an average trip length of 35 miles does not accurately reflect the Project's operational reality, Project emissions have been recalculated in CalEEMod assuming the maximum trip length of 35 miles. The results are shown in the Table below and compared to the SDAPCD’s thresholds of significance. As shown, with the increase in truck trip length results in n o change in the significance determination occurred. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Emission Source
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
CalEEMod Sources (area sources, worker
commutes and truck trips) 0.47 2.22 8.39 0.17 5.06 1.57 Calculated Fugitive Evaporation (fuel
transfer off-gassing) 32.27 -- -- -- -- --
Mainline SDAB Rail Emissions (65 miles
of transport per train trip) 7.67 31.24 5.97 1.96 1.09 1.00 Project Emissions 40.41 33.46 14.36 2.13 6.15 2.57
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
CalEEMod Sources (area sources, worker
commutes and truck trips) 0.46 23.00 8.38 0.17 5.06 1.57

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-40 October 2025
2021-285

Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Emission Source
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Calculated Fugitive Evaporation (fuel
transfer off-gassing) 32.27 -- -- -- -- --
Mainline SDAB Rail Emissions (65 miles
of transport per train trip) 7.67 31.24 5.97 1.96 1.09 1.00 Project Emissions 40.40 54.24 14.35 2.13 6.15 2.57
Daily Significance Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Exceed Daily Threshold? No No No No No No
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
CalEEMod Sources (area sources, worker
commutes and truck trips) 0.08 4.19 1.53 0.03 0.92 0.28 Calculated Fugitive Evaporation (fuel
transfer off-gassing) 5.9 -- -- -- -- --
Mainline SDAB Rail Emissions (65 miles
of transport per train trip) 1.4 5.7 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2
Project Emissions 7.38 9.89 2.63 0.43 1.12 0.48
Annual Significance Threshold 13.7 40 100 40 15 10
Exceed Annual Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: 1CalEEMod version 2022.1. Operational emissions for the Proposed Project fugitive VOC/ROG emissions calculated by US Compliance. Trip counts and distances were calculated based on the Project’s daily throughput, truck tanker capacity, and a trip distance of 35 miles. In addition, mainline rail emissions were calculated using the BNSF ton-mile per gallon, Project throughput, BNSF engine inventory and CARB Vision Access Database emission factors in grams per gallon diesel. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Response to Comment 4-4:

The commenter notes that six additional truck trips were not initially modeled in the Project HRA. To address this oversight, an HRA was conducted for the six heavy-duty truck trips using the same parameters and modeling techniques for off-site truck movement and onsite idling that was used in the

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-41 October 2025
2021-285

original analysis. The tables below present the Maximum Cancer Risk Summary and the Maximum Non - Carcinogenic Hazard Index Health Risk Summary for the additional six trips and adds the resultant health risk to the health risk previously calculated for the Project. As shown, operational emissions remain below the thresholds.

Maximum Cancer Risk Summary
Maximum Exposure Scenario Total Maximum Risk
Additional Trucks
70-Year Exposure Resident 0.08
30-Year Exposure Resident 0.07
25-Year Exposure Worker 0.01
Previous Analysis
70-Year Exposure Resident 8.92
30-Year Exposure Resident 7.56
25-Year Exposure Worker 1.02
Total
70-Year Exposure Resident 9.00
30-Year Exposure Resident 7.63
25-Year Exposure Worker 1.03
Significance Threshold 10
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: See Attachment B.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-42 October 2025
2021-285

Maximum Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Health Risk Summary Chronic Health Hazard Index
Exposure Scenario Maximum (70 yr.)
Residential Hazard
Maximum (30 yr.)
Residential Hazard
Maximum (25 yr.)
Worker Hazard
Additional Trucks 0.000 0.000 0.000
Previous Analysis 0.003 0.003 0.0005
Total 0.003 0.003 0.0005
Significance Threshold 1 1 1
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Acute Health Hazard Index
Exposure Scenario Maximum Residential
Hazard
Maximum Worker
Hazard
Maximum School
Hazard
Additional Trucks 0.0000 0.0000 --
Previous Analysis 0.0001 0.0006 --
Total 0.0001 0.0006 --
Significance Threshold 1 1 1
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: See Attachment B.

Response to Comment 4-5:

The commenter suggests implementing mitigation measures or Project design features requiring the use of zero-emission switcher and line-haul locomotives, as well as installing on-site charging or fueling infrastructure at the proposed transload facility. While the Project supports California’s long -term air quality improvement goals and GHG reduction goals, the adoption of zero-emission locomotive technologies, particularly for line-haul operations, is currently not technically feasible at the scale required to meet the Project’s operational needs. According to CARB’s own findings, zero-emission line-haul locomotives are not expected to be commercially available until at least 2035. Furthermore, the necessary infrastructure along rail routes, such as charging or hydrogen fueling stations, is still under development and not yet capable of supporting large-scale implementation.

It is important to highlight that the Project’s primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of renewable fuels, including renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel. These fuels provide immediate, lower-carbon alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions and toxic air pollutants. By enabling the use of renewable fuels, the Project serves as a critical transitional measure while zero-emission locomotive and truck technologies continue to advance.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-43 October 2025
2021-285

The environmental analysis for the Project has already accounted for emissions from locomotives and demonstrates that these emissions are below applicable thresholds of significance for both air quality and health risk impacts. The Project does not preclude the use of zero-emission switcher and line-haul locomotives as they become more commercially viable. The Project aligns with California’s long -term environmental goals by supporting the transition to cleaner transportation technologies and will remain adaptable to advancements in zero-emission solutions as they become more feasible. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 4-6:

The commenter raises concerns regarding DPM and other air pollutants generated by the Project’s heavy - duty truck operations, recommending the inclusion of Project design features or mitigation measures to facilitate a transition to zero-emission trucks. While the availability of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks is improving, it remains limited in terms of scale, operational range, and the infrastructure needed to fully replace conventional diesel trucks for the Project’s transportation requirements.

The Project provides an immediate air quality benefit by enabling the distribution of renewable fuels such as renewable diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, and sustainable aviation fuel. These fuels significantly reduce lifecycle GHG emissions and air pollutants compared to conventional fossil fuels, serving as a critical interim solution while zero-emission truck technologies continue to mature. Although on-site charging or fueling infrastructure is not currently included in the Project’s scope due to the lack of widespread adoption of zero-emission trucks, the Project does not preclude the use of these vehicles as they become more commercially viable. The Project aligns with California’s long-term environmental goals by supporting the transition to cleaner transportation technologies and will remain adaptable to advancements in zero-emission solutions as they become more feasible. The commenter references the Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Omnibus Rule and Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation and notes that due to implementation of these regulations; diesel-fueled trucks will be phased out in California. The truck fleet serving the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to these regulations and the air pollutant and GHG inventory associated with the Project will reduce accordingly as these regulations take effect. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 4-7:

This comment is the conclusion of the letter which summarizes CARB’s concerns with Project emissions from heavy-duty trucks and locomotives affecting the air quality in the Portside Community. Please see Responses to Comments 4-1 through 4-6. No further response is needed.

Response to Comment 4-8:

Comment 4-8 is an attachment to CARB’s comment letter dated June 7, 2024 for the Project’s NOP. This comment letter was addressed in Section 1.4.1.1 of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-44 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – California Coastal Commission

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-45 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-46 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-47 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-48 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-49 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-50 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-51 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-52 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-53 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 5 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-54 October 2025
2021-285

Response to California Coastal Commission – Letter 5:

Response to Comment 5-1:

The commenter summarizes the Project Description, Project features, and fleet mix. No response is needed.

Response to Comment 5-2:

The commenter summarizes that the Project is located in the Coastal Zone and would need a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the City. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff also note the Draft EIR identified one single-parameter wetland within the Project Area. No response is needed.

Response to Comment 5-3:

The commenter describes the three-part test used to determine allowed uses within wetlands within the coastal zone. The commenter notes that the Draft EIR adequately describes how the Proposed Project is consistent with one of the enumerated use categories described in Coastal Act Section 30233(a)(1)- (7) and that there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative that exists. The commenter states that the third and final test mandates that feasible mitigation measures are provided to minimize a ny of the project’s adverse environmental effects and that the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of impacts to the wetland or mitigation.

As described in 3.2 Biological Resources in the Draft EIR impacts to this feature were analyzed and impacts were determined to be less than significant. The analysis does not conclude that there is no impact. The analysis identifies that the feature is located within the right-of-way of Harrison Avenue and partially to the west of the right-of-way. Historic aerial imagery shows the presence of standing water in 2020 and 2018. From 1994 to 2017, the location where this feature is located was heavily used by trucks serving a small trucking center with a former concrete slab where trucks were parked which no longer exists. The concrete slab was removed in 2018. Off highway vehicle (OHV) use has historically occurred in this location with some regularity since 2018. The analysis further identified that groundwater elevations varied from 14.5 feet to 16.5 feet throughout the Project Site and that the groundwater table within the Project Site does not appear to be influenced by tidal fluctuations in San Diego Bay. For these reasons, the Project Site and this feature is considered to be not subject to frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity, or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. The soils of the feature are fill soils that are also considered to be non-hydric, showing no hydric indicators based on the field survey. The feature is an isolated puddle whose occurrence is likely due to compaction of fill soils within the existing facility.

A subsequent site visit to evaluate this feature was conducted on July 31, 2025 and a letter report documenting the updated delineation was submitted to Coastal staff on August 18, 2025. The letter report is included as Appendix B to this Final EIR. ECORP conducted this survey and assessment due to updated regulations from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and due to reports of changes in the topography at the Project Site subsequent to the public review period for the Draft EIR.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-55 October 2025
2021-285

Topographic alterations likely occurred as a result of soil and gravel stockpiling and placement and compaction of those soils and gravel associated with site remediation efforts undertaken by the underlying property owner Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) under a separate project. The field survey and assessment determined that the previously mapped depressional feature is no longer present and the area where it was previously located is no longer is capable of holding water. The stormwater runoff through the site now travels just to the east along the previous railroad tracks. For the updated delineation, paired sample point locations were sampled within the location of previously mapped Feature 3 to evaluate whether or not the vegetation, hydrology, and soils data supported an aquatic resource determination. One point was located within the estimated aquatic resource area, and the other point was situated just outside the limits of the estimated aquatic resource area.

During the site visit on July 31, 2025 evidence of the previously mapped depressional feature were absent in the updated delineation due to the placement of gravel and soil fill in that location. Due to soil changes and topographic changes likely the result of site remediation undertaken as a separate project by BNSF, the location met neither vegetation, soils or hydrologic parameters of being a wetland under its current condition. Consistent with CEQA and with the City’s discretionary authority, a determination of a less than significant impact to this feature is maintained based on the results of the analysis. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 5-4:

This commenter states the Project IS/MND should include a comprehensive Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis for impact discussion including EJ screening. The commenter also suggests that the analysis include a more robust cumulative analysis of air quality, and proper community consultation consistent with the Commission’s EJ Policy and the General Plan Health and Environmental Justice and Education and Public Participation elements within a broad Area of Potential Effects (APE) to ensure those communities are property notified of the project and included in the decision-making process. The CCC states the outreach on this Project has been inadequate per Commission’s EJ policy and the City’s General Plan. The commenter also states the Alternatives should consider the health and environmental justice impacts when determining viability.

It is understood that the commenter meant to state that the Project Draft EIR should include the elements identified above. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen), the Project Site is located in the 65th percentile for Low Income Population and the 82nd percentile for People of Color Population (National Percentiles) (USEPA 2023).

The Project would create new jobs serving underserved areas in San Diego County using local and regional employees and resources. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with criteria pollutants to nearby sensitive receptors and Project operations do not result in a significant contribution to cancer risk in the community. Several clean-up sites are located in areas adjacent to the Project Site and have been remediated and closed under the direction and oversight of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 (RWQCB). The clean-up site located on the Project Site, is the Pacific Steel, Inc.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-56 October 2025
2021-285

site, located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue. As part of a separate project, DTSC has completed the remediation of the area behind 1700 Cleveland Avenue. Because the overall proportions of low -income and minority populations in the Project Area are comparable to those within the City of National City, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts that are predominately borne by a low -income or minority population, nor would Project-related impacts be appreciably more severe to these populations.

Therefore, the Project would not result in an adverse effect to Environmental Justice populations within a 5-mile radius of the Project location. It is acknowledged that in comparison to San Diego County as a whole, the City has a higher proportion of low-income and minority populations.

The City has fulfilled its obligation for environmental review under CEQA through preparation of the Draft EIR, including requirements for scoping and public review. Furthermore, in alignment with the Commission’s environmental justice engagement goals and the City policies promoting public participation, the City has encouraged the Applicant to conduct their own outreach independently and the Applicant has engaged in outreach with the local community throughout the environmental review process. As demonstrated through the analysis provided within the Draft EIR, impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 5-5:

The CCC states the appropriate time horizon to use to evaluate sea level rise (SLR) and coastal hazards depends on the expected useful life of development. The CCC’s 2024 SLR Policy Update states the life of critical infrastructure, like the proposed fuel transfer station, is considered to be 100 years.

The
commenter states the Draft EIR should (1) define the anticipated life of the project and identify the appropriate SLR projection(s) to analyze over that anticipated lifetime consistent with the Commissio n’s SLR Guidance for critical infrastructure, (2) analyze and describe the physical impacts from coastal hazards and SLR that may constrain the project site and/or impact the proposed development, and (3) should include an assessment of any SLR adaptation measures that may be implemented as part of the design or implemented in the future, such as relocation or removal if and when the development is threatened by coastal hazards.

CEQA requires that the environmental impacts from a project be analyzed. However, it does not require an analysis of impacts of the environment on a project. For informational purposes, a discussion is provided to address this comment. The Project lifetime is expected to be 30 years but could have a potential useful life of up to 100 years. Currently, the best available science on SLR projections in California is provided in the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance (OPC 2024). The S tate guidance adopts the same framework and approach used by the federal government and provides five sea level rise scenarios that have been regionalized for California-specific use. The state guidance also includes a decision framework to guide selection of appropriate sea level scenarios, primarily recommending evaluation of the intermediate, intermediate-high, and/or high scenarios depending on the context of the planning effort/project. This information is reflected in the Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-57 October 2025
2021-285

Guidance (CCC 2024). The table below shows the sea level rise scenarios for the San Diego tide gauge, the closest tide gauge to the Project Site.

The existing elevation throughout the Project Site ranges from approximately 8 to 13 feet above mean sea level. Based on the United States Geologic Service’s Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS ), as shown on the Our Coast Our Future (OCOF) Hazards Map, the Project Site could begin to see flooding impacts starting with 2.5 feet of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Starting with 4.1 feet of SLR, portions of the site may be flooded under normal, non-storm conditions. Based on the same mapping, the main pat hway for flooding appears to be from the 7th Street Channel to the north, such that the northern portions of the Project Site would be impacted sooner/with less SLR. With increasing SLR (or with increasing SLR plus storm conditions), more portions of the Project Site could be flooded. CoSMoS/OCOF also provides information on groundwater changes resulting from sea level rise. The Project Site is already in an area with a shallow groundwater table, and SLR could result in an emergent groundwater table (i.e. groundwater flooding) in portions of the project site with 2.5 feet of SLR. As the table above shows, 2.5 feet of SLR could occur as soon as 2065 under the High scenario, or closer to 2090 (or later) under the more likely Intermediate Scenario. Similarly, 4.1 feet of SLR could occur as soon as 2080 under the High Scenario, or after 2110 under the Intermediate Scenario. As noted above, the Project lifetime is expected to be 30 years but could have a potential useful life of up to 100 years.

Based on the data, the Project Site and the proposed development would not be exposed to hazards over the anticipated 30-year lifetime, but could start to be exposed to flooding soon after under a High scenario. Even under the High scenario though, initial risks to proposed development may not be

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-58 October 2025
2021-285

significant. As identified above, initial flooding impacts would occur as a result of 2.5 feet of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Thus, flooding would be a rare, short-duration event rather than a routine, prolonged condition. Moreover, these earliest impacts would be primarily confined to the northern portion of the Project Site (north of W 16th Street). This portion of the Project Site would only include construction of railroad tracks, which would likely be able to withstand occasional storm flooding impacts.

Additionally, some Project design features incorporated into the Project already take into account SLR adaptation strategies, including the relocation and elevation of utility infrastructure and placement of the fuel transload facilities and equipment to areas outside of the risk for coastal flooding conditions.

Specifically, fuel transload facilities and equipment and other proposed development are primarily located on southerly portions of the Project Site, which would not be exposed to flood impacts under 2.5 feet of SLR (even with a 100-year storm).

Overall, the proposed development will adequately minimize risks associated with flooding, including as exacerbated by sea level rise, over the proposed 30-year anticipated lifetime. However, coastal hazards risks would increase in the following years with additional sea level rise. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 5-6:

This comment states the Final EIR should include a regional jurisdictional arid -west wetland delineation for the Project Area since the mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) identified in the aquatic resources delineation and biological resources assessment has a wetland indicator status of Facultative (FAC). In this case the mule fat is also not associated with any water body, as it is isolated. Its occurrence is within an upland environment. The 1981 CCC State Wide Interpretive Guidelines also define riparian habitats under the CCA as an area of riparian vegetation. This vegetation is an association of plant species which grows adjacent to freshwater watercourses, including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and other bodies of freshwater.

The commenter further states that the Final EIR should include a regional jurisdictional arid -west wetland delineation for this area. See Attachment B of the Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) report (appended to the Draft IS/MND) with the Arid West OHWM datasheets for Features 1 and 2. Mulefat was not associated with either of these features (not located within the drainages or at the top -of-bank) therefore an Arid West OHWM datasheet was not filled out for the disturbed mulefat vegetation community. The letter report documenting the updated delineation included as Appendix B to this Final EIR provides arid west wetland delineation forms for Feature 3.

Response to Comment 5-7:

Comment 5-7 is an attachment to the CCC’s comment letter dated June 30, 2023 for the Project’s Draft IS/MND. This comment letter was provided in response to the IS/MND and not the current Draft EIR. No further response is needed.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-59 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 6 – Eric Suarez

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-60 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 6 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-61 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 6 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-62 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 6 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-63 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 6 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-64 October 2025
2021-285

Response to Eric Suarez – Letter 6:

Response to Comment 6-1:

The commenter highlights issues raised by CARB in Letter 4 (page 3-17), including the following:
1) The City used incorrect trip lengths when modeling the Project’s air quality impacts from mobile sources.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4-3.
2) The City used incorrect vehicle fleet mixes to evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts from mobile sources.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4-4.
3) The City must provide substantial evidence demonstrating the Project would not increase line - haul locomotive traffic.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4-5.
4) The City must do more to reduce the Project’s impacts on air quality and public health.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4-6 and 4-7. Air quality and public health improvements unrelated to the Proposed Project are beyond the scope of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 6-2:

The commenter describes the Project’s property requirements as discussed in Section 5.3 .1 of the Draft EIR and states the Project Proponent chose this location because of the existing infrastructure. The commenter also expresses concern with the sources of pollution and increased rates of asthma and cancer in National City. This comment describes sources of emissions, including nearby cargo ships, trucks, cranes, junkyards, industrial repair shops, and highways. The commenter suggests changing the current zoning of the Project Area and surrounding area from mixed/heavy manufacturing to begin to undo damage to the neighborhood. The commenter also states there is an increasing number of odor complaints and air quality concerns which reflect the growing frustration among residents.

As described in Response to Comment 1-1, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the Draft EIR considered a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Under CEQA, not every conceivable alternative needs to be considered; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the P roject that will foster informed decision making and public participation. As described in Section 5.3.1 of the Draft EIR, Alternative Location Outside of National City, the City considered alternative locations within and outside of both the City limits and Portside Communities along both Union Pacific and BNSF rail lines. The siting of fuel transfer facilities of this magnitude requires a substantial flat area large en ough to accommodate multiple rail cars queued off of the railroad mainline or primary rail spur so as to not

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-65 October 2025
2021-285

obstruct other rail activity. As stated in Section 5.3.1 of the Draft EIR, the Offsite Alternative location was selected as it meets the basic Project objectives and property requirements such as being rail- owned, rail adjacent, adequately sized to accommodate the required throughput, and appropriately zoned to accommodate this type of project. Alternative locations considered were either unavailable for development, would not feasibly accommodate a project such as the Proposed Project, or would not reduce any significant impacts because none are identified for the Proposed Project. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

As discussed in Section 3.1 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Area is McKinley Apartments, located approximately 380 feet east of the Project Area. The Project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed any SDAPCD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants during construction or operations. The Project’s HRA conducted for the Proposed Project determined that neither Project operations nor construction would result in a significant contribution to cancer risk in the community.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1-3 regarding odors. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 6-3:

The commenter states the Proposed Project provides little benefit to the National City residents. The commenter acknowledges that the Project Proponent has tried to remediate issues the community has with the Project but disagrees with the Draft EIR’s determination that some issues are outside the scope of the EIR.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No response is necessary.

Response to Comment 6-4:

Comment 6-4 is an email exchange between the commenter and City. The commenter expresses personal concerns with the Proposed Project and requests that the City consider them in their decision making process. The City informed him of the recent Draft EIR which could address his concerns and informed him of the public review period for the EIR. No response is necessary.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-66 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Environmental Health Coalition

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-67 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-68 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-69 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-70 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-71 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-72 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-73 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-74 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-75 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-76 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-77 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-78 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-79 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-80 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-81 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-82 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-83 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 – Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-84 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 Attachment

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-85 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 Attachment - Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-86 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 Attachment - Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-87 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 Attachment - Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-88 October 2025
2021-285

Letter 7 Attachment - Continued

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-89 October 2025
2021-285

Response to Environmental Health Coalition – Letter 7:

Response to Comment 7-1:

Comment 7-1 notes that Coast Law Group LLP submitted this letter on behalf of the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) and summarizes that the letter will detail how the Draft EIR fails to adequately characterize and mitigate significant impacts to water quality, air quality, human beings, hazardous impacts, GHG emissions, and transportation. No response is needed as the following responses will address EHC’s specific concerns with Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 7-2:

Comment 7-2 states the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze the 0.144-acres of the Project Area that contains Coastal Act wetland features. The commenter states the Proposed Project does not align with Coastal Act Section 30233(a)(1).

The commenter states that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the Project’s consistency with the Local Coastal Program (LCP), it only analyzed consistency with the Coastal Act.

The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 5-3.

Response to Comment 7-3:

The commenter asserts that the Project would result in significant air quality impacts and states the Draft EIR did not adequately analyze air quality impacts and underestimates the Project’s cancer risks. The commenter raises concerns about the use of the cancer risk threshold in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR applies a threshold of significance for maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million, consistent with T-BACT (Toxics Best Available Control Technology) being applied to stationary sources, per SDAPCD Rule 1200. The 10 in a million threshold has been identified as a significance level for "CEQA" purposes that includes Project mobile sources, in addition to Project stationary sources. This threshold is standard practice for projects of this nature per SDAPCD’s guidance and recommendations. The Project, as analyzed in the Draft EIR, includes measures to minimize emissions and applies T -BACT for relevant stationary sources, such as spill containment valves and couplers in fuel transfer processes. It is important to clarify that truck emissions associated with the Project are categorized as mobile sources and are regulated separately under state and federal standards. Mobile source emissions were thoroughly analyzed using AERMOD and HARP2 models, indicating that the maximum cancer risk remains below the applicable threshold of 10 in one million at all receptor locations. In addition, it is noted that diesel- fueled truck mobile sources will be phased out in California by existing regulations as zero -emission truck technologies continue to mature. To better address regional air pollution and global climate change, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 on September 23, 2020. The Executive Order states: “It shall be a goal of the state that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. It shall be a further goal of the state that 100% of medium and heavy -duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. It shall be further a goal of the state to transition to 100% zero-emission off-road vehicles and

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-90 October 2025
2021-285

equipment by 2035 where feasible.” The Executive Order further directs the development of regulations to help meet these goals. According to CARB, it has implemented or is developing regulations that will eventually require the use of zero-emission trucks throughout the state. CARB also requires increasing the use of zero-emission trucks, through the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, which aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission trucks. The Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, approved by CARB on June 25, 2020, required manufacturers to start manufacturing zero-emission trucks and vans beginning in 2024.

The rule is expected to result in about 100,000 zero-emission trucks in California by the end of 2030 and about 300,000 by 2035. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation is part of CARB’s overall approach to accelerate use of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks. CARB approved amendments to the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation in March 2021. The amendments help ensure that more zero -emission vehicles are brought to market.

While the Project supports California’s long-term air quality improvement goals and GHG reduction goals, the adoption of zero-emission locomotive technologies, particularly for line-haul operations, is currently not technically feasible at the scale required to meet the Project’s operational needs. According to CARB’s own findings, zero-emission line-haul locomotives are not expected to be commercially available until at least 2035. Furthermore, the necessary infrastructure along rail routes, such as chargi ng or hydrogen fueling stations, is still under development and not yet capable of supporting large -scale implementation.

It is important to highlight that the Project’s primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of renewable fuels, including renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel. These fuels provide immediate, lower-carbon alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions and toxic air pollutants. By enabling the use of renewable fuels, the Project serves as a critical transitional measure while zero-emission locomotive and truck technologies continue to advance.

The environmental analysis for the Project has already accounted for emissions from locomotives and demonstrates that these emissions are below applicable thresholds of significance for both air quality and health risk impacts. The Project does not preclude the use of zero-emission switcher and line-haul locomotives as they become more commercially viable. The Project aligns with California’s long -term environmental goals by supporting the transition to cleaner transportation technologies and will remain adaptable to advancements in zero-emission solutions as they become more feasible.

The comment also summarizes a recent study on short-term total and wildfire fine particulate matter exposure which found that PM

2.5 exposure is associated with increases in risk for illness-related work absences which is amplified by wildfire smoke. This study found one unit increase in PM 2.5 could result in more than 1 million days of work loss due to sickness and a quarter billion dollars of economic loss annually in the State.

Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. This includes both coarse and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). The emissions thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration s tandards

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-91 October 2025
2021-285

were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (EPA), these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks. All Project-related emission sources were included in the analysis and determined to be below applicable thresholds of significance and less than significant.

The commenter further states the Draft EIR does not give supporting information, such as identifying retail customers or locations, that proves project deliveries will be confined to a 35 -mile radius.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4 -3. The 35-mile radius from the Project Area generally covers the coastal plain within San Diego County and is defined based on geography and the location of population demand centers. Areas beyond the 35-mile radius begin to encroach into federal lands (e.g., Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to the north and the Cleveland National Forest to the east) and retail locations become very sparse beyond this distance.

Response to Comment 7-4:

The commentor raises concerns regarding the Project’s consistency with the goals outlined in the Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for the Portside Environmental Justice Community. The CERP establishes ambitious targets to reduce DPM and other emissions from mobile and stationary sources.

The Project, while addressing immediate needs for renewable fuels distribution, aligns with long -term air quality goals in several critical ways. Below are responses pertaining to each goal addressed by the comment.

Goal 1 – “By 2031, reduce Diesel PM from 2018 levels by 80% in ambient air at all Portside Community locations”: The Project will enable the distribution of renewable fuels such as renewable diesel, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel, which produce significantly fewer emissions over their lifecycle compared to conventional petroleum-based fuels. These renewable fuels are designed to replace traditional diesel in the transportation sector, directly contributing to a reduction in DPM emissions regionally, including within the Portside Community.

While the Project introduces heavy-duty truck (HDT) trips to the Project Area, these trips would replace existing trips originating from areas farther away and are necessary to supply cleaner fuels to nearby retailers, displacing dirtier fuels currently in use and resulting in a net reduction of transportation sector emissions over time. Additionally, the Project will comply with California's state mandates, suc h as the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation and the Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Omnibus Rule, which are designed to accelerate the adoption of cleaner HDT technologies. These mandates, implemented by CARB, include significant reductions in DPM and NOx emissions through the use of Tier 4 engines and the gradual adoption of zero-emission HDTs over time.

As cleaner truck technologies become increasingly available, the trucks serving the Project will be required to meet California’s stringent emissions standards, ensuring that diesel PM emissions from HDTs continue to decline. This compliance will further align the Project with California’s air quality goals and the Portside Community’s CERP goal of reducing Diesel PM by 80 percent by 2031.

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-92 October 2025
2021-285

Goal 2 – Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty trucks servicing Portside Community to be 100% zero- emission vehicles (ZEV) 5 years ahead of the California state requirements: The commenter highlights that the Project does not mandate the use of ZEVs. However, it is important to note that zero -emission heavy-duty truck technologies are still in the early stages of adoption, with infrastructure and fleet availability not yet sufficient for large-scale implementation. The Project does not preclude the future transition to ZEVs; instead, it is designed to remain adaptable as ZEV technologies become commercially viable. The renewable fuels facilitated by the Project act as an interim solution, providing immediate emission reductions while the industry transitions to zero-emission alternatives.

Goal 4 – Reduce emissions from HD/MD trucks servicing indirect sources by 100% 5 years in advance of regulatory requirements: The commenter expresses concerns about the cumulative impacts of the Project alongside other indirect sources within the Portside Community. The Project was evaluated under CEQA with a Health Risk Assessment that incorporates emissions from both stationary and mobile sources, demonstrating that cancer risks and other health impacts are below applicable thresholds of significance (see Response to Comment 7-3). Additionally, the Project’s focus on renewable fuels directly supports the broader objective of reducing emissions associated with indirect sources like warehouses and distribution facilities.

Response to Comment 7-5:

The commenter raises concerns regarding the Draft EIR’s analysis of GHG emissions, including the applied thresholds, mitigation, modeling assumptions, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Project proposes the distribution of renewable fuels—such as renewable diesel, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel—to retailers in a region that currently lacks direct access to these alternatives. By making these fuels available locally by rail, the Project reduces the need for long-distance transport, helping to lower VMT and the associated emissions within the region. Additionally, the renewable fuels supported by the Project align with California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and broader climate action goals by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions compared to traditional fossil fuels. Additionally, California’s Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation and Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Omnibus Rule are driving rapid improvements in heavy-duty vehicle emissions performance. The Project will comply with these state-mandated requirements, incorporating Tier IV and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies into its operations as they become more available and feasible. The Project does not impede the transition to ZEVs and will remain adaptable to evolving regulatory and technological advancements. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 4-2 and 7-3 for more detail on Project features that reduce emissions.

The Draft EIR appropriately applies the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) interim GHG significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO
2e per year, a widely recognized threshold for
evaluating land use projects. As stated on page 3.4-8 of the Draft EIR, neither the SDAPCD nor the City of National City identifies a numeric GHG significance threshold. In the absence of such a threshold the analysis employs the SCAQMD significance threshold due to the proximities of the South Coast Air Bas in and the San Diego Air Basin. While the commenter suggests using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 900 MTCO
2e threshold, CEQA allows lead agencies the discretion to select

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-93 October 2025
2021-285

thresholds that are appropriate for the region and project type. The SCAQMD threshold reflects California’s regulatory framework and is consistent with thresholds applied to similar projects in the region. The Draft EIR’s analysis demonstrates that the Project aligns with state and regional climate goals.

Additionally, the Draft EIR demonstrates Project consistency with the National City Climate Action Plan. As stated on page 3.4-11, the Climate Action Plan has several required policies and actions that apply to the Project. The Project would incorporate all the applicable actions as required by mitigation measure GHG -1 (see page 3.4-12 of the Draft EIR). The VMT reduction measures in the Climate Action Plan referenced by the commenter are not applicable to the Project or any proposed development. A review of Table CAP -9 of the Climate Action Plan shows that the VMT reduction strategies (TLU-1.1 – TLU-1.12) are implemented by the Community Development Department on a citywide basis, and do not address specific requirements of private development projects.

In response to comments about the Draft EIR’s assumption of an average one-way trip distance of 12.32 miles, the Project’s CalEEMod modeling has been updated (see Response to Comment 4 -3) to reflect a more conservative assumption of 35 miles as stated in the Project’s Traffic Report. This adjustment accounts for the potential for longer delivery routes and ensures a robust and conservative analysis. Even with this updated trip length, the Project’s operational GHG emissions remain below the significance threshold.

Response to Comment 7-6:

Comment 7-6 states the Project does not consider the cumulative impact of creating additional capacity by freeing up capacity at the BNSF facility in San Diego. The commenter also states the Draft EIR did not explain the capacity reduction from the IS/MND to the Draft EIR.

The commenter does not agree with the Draft EIR’s use of San Diego ITE Guidelines rather than the OPR Technical Advisory.

The commenter also states that per 14 CCR 15064(b)(2), 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 the impact may be significant despite compliance with the threshold.

Through Project planning, BNSF identified that one new locomotive trip was required to serve the Project Site that would go directly to National City and the Project Site, bypassing classification yards and will not be reclassified or re-blocked (i.e., split up and organized to be sent to multiple destinations) at the BNSF San Diego Rail Yard located north of the Project Site. Therefore, there would be no change in activity at the BNSF San Diego Rail Yard. The OPR Technical Advisory is a guidance document t o offer recommendations for which agencies may use at their discretion. The screening threshold of 110 trips to conclude the presumption of a less than significant VMT impact is a recommended value to assess typical small projects based on a typical trip generation rate of 110 to 124 trips per 10,000 square feet and intended for consistency with a CEQA Class 1 exemption (existing facilities). The OPR Technical Advisory does not include recommendations for industrial type developments. At the City’s discretion, reliance on the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (May 2019) screening threshold

Final
San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
Environmental Impact Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC Project
3-94 October 2025
2021-285

were utilized to determine impact significance. As noted in the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (May 2019), it is recommended that lead agencies determine a minimum project size, below which VMT impacts are presumed to be less than significant. This determination of minimum project size for VMT analysis differs from the OPR guidance as it is based on regional standards for transportation analyses documented in the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (ITE/SANTEC, 2000) as noted in the comment. This methodology is widely accepted by transportation professionals, decisions makers, and the public. Per the guidelines, Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and with average daily trips between 0 and 1,000 are not required to perform a full VMT analysis and VMT impacts can be presumed to be less than significant.

Response to Comment 7-7:

Comment 7-7 states the alternatives analysis provided in the Draft EIR is inadequate as the Draft EIR incorrectly concludes none of the Project impacts are significant. This comment states the analysis of Alternative 3 is flawed as the proposed use is prohibited in the Light Industrial (ML) zone in which it is located. The commenter also states the Alternative 3 location does not reflect an inclusion of a reasonable range of alternatives as it is still within the Portside Community.

Please refer to Responses to Comments 1 -1 and 6-2. As part of the process of application (for Alternative 3), the Project Applicant would include a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as development of the site would require consistency wi th both the General Plan and Zoning Code. This change would be necessary to achieve the goal of General Plan/Zoning consistency. It is expected that the General Plan Amendment request would be to change the existing land use designation from Light Industrial to Industrial and the Zone Change would be to change the zoning from Light Industrial to Medium Industrial. With the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Project would be consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation and zoning code and the Project could be developed with a CUP. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to Comment 7-8:

Comment 7-8 provides a map of the BNSF network in San Diego County. No response is required.

Response to Comment 7-9:

Comment 7-9 states the cumulative impact of the cleanup of the remediation area outlined in the DTSC Interim Measure Workplan (IMW) has not been studied. The commenter states the remediation effort did not consider the intended use of the property as the IMW Notice of Exemption incorrectly states the property owner had no plans for future redevelopment of the site. This comment also references a demand letter sent to Pacific Steel by DTSC which demands revisions to the Corrective Measures Study for the 1700 Cleveland Avenue site including a requirement that the remediated BNSF parcel remain as a part of the facility. The commenter states the concurrent remediation of the PSI property and Project construction must be analyzed.