Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2022_Open Session_Item 8_People's Collective for Enviornmental Justice 2_RedactedJune 1, 2022 City of San Bernardino 290 N. D Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 RE: Real Property Street Vacation 15.30.434 Dear City of San Bernardino, We, the Peoples Collective for Environmental Justice - a community based organization focused on addressing and eliminating environmental racism in the Inland Empire, write this letter to request that the City of San Bernardino does not move forward in considering BNSF’s track expansion until adequate community engagement and substantial environmental analysis has been done. The City of San Bernardino is acutely aware that the communities most impacted by this proposed track expansion are experiencing not only some of the highest levels of pollution and economic disadvantage in the City but also some of the worst in the State. For years, residents in the region have complained about the air pollution, dust, noise, locomotive idling, truck congestion and road damage that is caused by having BNSF as their neighbor. However, the problem continues and through this proposed project, proposes to grow. BNSF Pollution and Health Risks Over a decade ago, Loma Linda University produced health studies that demonstrated cancer cluster risks in the proposed area from the existing pollution caused by BNSF. This peer reviewed study was not included in the environmental review. We are concerned that the City did not include these studies and is excluding a pertinent piece of information for discussion. Since the City wants to do its due diligence in addressing environmental justice, then it is imperative for these studies and other health studies that have been conducted in the area to be included and shared with decision makers. Currently the Center for Environmental Research and Technology at the University of California Riverside is working with community members from the impacted sites on a personal air monitoring project, funded through the AB 617 Community Air Grants. This project has surveyed and canvassed the community that would be impacted by the track expansion. In those dynamic surveys, community members indicated that BNSF getting closer to their homes was of concern and many already suffered from respiratory illness. The community has felt health impacts for years of the intermodal facility, yet not much has been done to protect or advance the health of the community. BNSF has not taken initiative to share periodical health and environmental assessments. In order for the City to require the appropriate amount of mitigation measures, the full scope of impact must be disclosed. Inadequate Community Engagement We are also disappointed to see that the City of San Bernardino is not requesting adequate community engagement from BNSF. In a community, where the majority of the community is Hispanic and Non-white, how is the City going to permit that the notifications are only sent out in English? The “walking tour” held by BNSF on January 8th was the first time some residents heard about the project. A member of our organization attended the “walking tour” and talked to the Spanish speaking residents who they walked by who had no idea about the tour or the project. It is clear that the methods used by BNSF did not get the information to them. We are not convinced that the readership of the newspaper they put their notice in can be accepted as appropriate community engagement, given the lack of participation from the residential area. Allowing for the continued erasure of community voices, specifically marginalized communities, perpetuates environmental racism. The City of San Bernardino should require notification of the project to go around in both English and Spanish at least 1 mile from the project site to all homes and businesses. BNSF should also conduct more than one in-person meeting with the several community groups that work in the area. In a region that has quarterly AB 617 meetings, it is a missed opportunity to not require BNSF to attend that meeting and share information. Other groups such as Project Fighting Chance, Westside Action Group, Akoma Unity and other community groups that all work on the Westside of San Bernardino should have been engaged. Lastly, with the rising cases of the Omicron variant - it is explicitly disenfranchising to only have in-person opportunities to engage on the project by BNSF. Another walking tour and further notification should be provided to ensure those that are immunocompromised or are trying to keep their community safe from spreading the virus are accounted for. Mitigation Measures are Not Enough. BNSF is proposing this addition of a rail line to mitigate current rail traffic. Unfortunately the mitigation they have proposed will come with significant impacts that have not fully been looked at because the Environmental Impact Report was drafted using baseline data from an outdated General Plan. The City of San Bernardino and BNSF should pause and not move forward with this project. The City is going through its General Plan update in which the community on the Westside, where this proposed BNSF expansion is taking place, has been engaging and planning for the next 20 years, and the railyard getting closer to their homes is not in current or future planning. For BNSF to propose a project of expansion and say the only significant mitigation are sound walls is not enough. Although a soundwall will help with the noise impacts, this does nothing towards the pollution and infrastructure impacts. If BNSF truly wanted to mitigate its pollutant impacts and be a better neighbor to the Westside community, it would be proposing for a renovation of its intermodal facility to zero emissions technology not displacement of homes and businesses for another rail line.We request full analysis be made on what other alternatives could reduce similar or even more emissions as technology is out there for more reductions.One recommendation is replacing older switchers with newer ones and building out overhead catenary lines, that would bring a significant amount of emissions reductions and will not displace community resources like the Salvation Army. Residents continue to bear the cost of BNSF not cleaning up its pollution through their taxes, medical expenses, missed days off of work and school and more. BNSF is not providing gifts to the community with their mitigation, it is the cost of doing business. Lastly, California is also undergoing a housing crisis where there's a shortage of affordable and accessible housing. In a community that has high levels of housing insecurity and poverty, an analysis on how housing numbers will be made up for is missing and needed under SB330. This project would take away available housing but does not show where or how they will be relocated in the City. Where are the mitigation measures to address the potential loss of housing from this project? City should require further environmental and health analysis We believe that the City of San Bernardino needs to pursue a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review, given that this project will have regional and federal impacts. BNSF claims that the project will not create more emissions if a track is built, however we disagree with them. With the growth of the amount of containers entering the Ports of LA and LB plus the demand for mode shift, we can certainly expect operations to accelerate and grow at the BNSF Intermodal yard. The growth in operations at the proposed track and yard cannot be done so with an outdated CEQA and NEPA analysis. This would be a disservice to the community residents who live and work next to or at BNSF. We are also concerned that the EIR also does not do enough to analyze the health risk and environmental impacts that will be placed on the homes and families that do not wish to sell their home and will be stuck living and working closest to the railyard operations. We believe this is a liability that the City needs to be responsible for. The EIR does not assess what impacts come from being in close proximity to the railyards, which shows a huge gap in the “environmental justice” appendix. Closing In closing, we ask that the City not approve BNSF’s request for track expansion and instead require BNSF to fully conduct community engagement for the project and continue their environmental analysis before coming back for consideration of the Planning Commission. As the EIR process currently stands, there is not adequate information for decision makers to make a recommendation. Additionally, given the nature that this project would disproportionately impact an environmental justice community, we find it even more important that the process is inclusive, fair and non-discriminatory. We believe that the City would be able to negotiate a fair deal with BNSF if community members are both made aware and included in the needs they have for this project to move forward. Residents have spoken out about not wanting the Salvation Army moved, BNSF jobs being created for residents living in the impacted area and emissions reductions. Currently, the City is allowing BNSF to have all the discretion on these important issues. We believe a productive way of working with businesses in the region is to enter into Community Benefits Agreements, where there is a legally enforceable way to ensure that BNSF gives their end of the deal. As of right now, we do not have a guarantee that BNSF is going to ensure that the benefits of their operations are actually serving the neighboring community. We ask that the City consider this approach. If there are any questions on any information included in this letter, please feel free to contact us at Respectfully, Peoples Collective for Environmental Justice members, Alicia Aguayo Andrea Vidaurre Ivette Torres