LETTER SERIES: Mariko Yamada – Elizabeth Patterson for Mayor

[Editor: Benicians are expressing themselves in letters to the editor of our local print newspaper, the Benicia Herald.  But the Herald doesn’t publish letters in its online editions – and many Benician’s don’t subscribe.  We are posting certain letters here for wider distribution.  – RS]

Re-elect Elizabeth Patterson

By Mariko Yamada, Assemblymember, 4th Assembly District (Ret.)
Candidate, 3rd Senate District
October 4, 2016

As a public servant for over 40 years, I’ve had the privilege of working at the federal, state, regional and local levels of government
from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. to San Diego, and for the last 22 years here in Northern California. Over the decades, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and interact with literally hundreds of public officials from the east coast to the west coast, and up-and-down the State of California, during some of our country’s best times as well as some of our worst.

So when I say that Benicia is very fortunate to have Mayor Elizabeth Patterson at the helm of the city, I believe I have credible comparative evidence on which to make this claim.

Elizabeth is both smart and knowledgeable, characteristics highly desirable in a leader. At the same time, when she doesn’t know about a particular topic (which I have found to be rare), she seeks to learn all she can, and does so quickly, asking all the right questions. Elizabeth is energetic and hardworking, sets high standards for herself, and expects the same from others, especially those who also serve her Benicia constituents.  I know, because while representing Benicia in the California State Assembly for four years, Mayor Patterson was as cordial as she was clear and exacting about the needs of her city — and those needs always came first.

What I admire most about Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson are her courage, her integrity and her values, particularly around issues of the environment. Her work to address the hazardous materials left behind at the Benicia Arsenal and her leadership in the fight against the Valero expansion are testimony to her consistent leadership in protecting public safety and public health.

Sadly today, political valor is becoming rarer and rarer in the public domain. Honesty, doing what you say you’re going to do, and upholding the public trust in the face of unrelenting pressure isn’t “rewarded” with large political donations or being part of the “in-crowd”. Yet, Elizabeth Patterson has demonstrated, time and again, that her background, experience and temperament resonate with the voters. She is tenacious, authentic, and highly principled – and the only woman mayor in Solano County.

Benicia has been the beneficiary of Elizabeth Patterson’s many years of unselfish public service. She is poised and ready to continue her work on your behalf, and deserves your votes to return as your mayor for four more years.  Please join me in supporting Elizabeth Patterson for mayor of Benicia.

Mariko Yamada,
Assemblymember, 4th Assembly District (Ret.)
Candidate, 3rd Senate District

BREAKING NEWS: City of Benicia releases final Resolution to Deny Valero Crude by Rail

By Roger Straw, October 13, 2016

reso_16-160Today the City of Benicia released the final draft of the City Council’s Resolution No. 16-150, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BENICIA DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR THE VALERO CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT AT 3400 EAST SECOND STREET (12PLN-00063)

This document represents the “wordsmithed” version created during the City Council’s October 4 meeting.  This final version has not been previously seen by the public.

At the October 4 meeting, Council members insisted on strengthening the section (now numbered 1. on page 4) that describes the Surface Transportation Board’s decision, clarifying its opinion “that the City has the police power to protect public health and safety so long as it does ‘not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce.'”

The Council also directed staff to make substantial changes in the format of the staff’s draft version, moving all references to rail-related impacts to a single “informational” item (now numbered 2A-2F on pages 4-6).

The heart of the revised document – findings for denial – are numbered 3-6 on pages 6-9.

NOTE: The 10-page PDF document linked above is large (4.8MB) and slow to download from the City’s website, so be patient.  A smaller unofficial version can be downloaded here or you can download the original from Google Drive here.

San Luis Obispo victory: media roundup

In an email from Ethan Buckner…

SLO victory: media roundup

By Ethan Buckner, STAND.earth, 10/6/2016 2:23 PM

Sacramento Bee: California rejects another oil company’s plan to ship oil on trains

San Luis Obispo Tribune: SLO Planning Commission rejects Phillips 66 oil-by-rail proposal

KSBY News:

KCBX: SLO County Planning Commission votes to deny Phillips 66 rail spur project

Lompoc Record: SLO County Planning Commission votes down oil-by-rail proposal

CalCoast News: SLO County Planning Commission denies Phillips 66 rail spur project

Pacific Coast Business Times: Phillips 66’s crude-by-rail proposal denied

BREAKING NEWS: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Denies Phillips 66’s Oil Trains Project

From a STAND.earth Press Release

Press Release: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Denies Phillips 66’s Oil Trains Project

By Ethan Buckner, October 5, 2016

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. – The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission today voted to reject Phillips 66’s proposed oil train facility in Nipomo.The decision comes after a nearly three-year review process, with more than 20,000 Californians opposing the project, and more than 45 cities, counties, and school boards sending letters urging the planning commission to deny it.

This decision comes on the heels of the Benicia City Council’s rejection Tuesday night of a similar project proposed for Valero’s Benicia refinery. The Benicia denial came only hours after the federal Surface Transportation Board issued an order upholding the city’s authority to deny Valero’s project. The Board’s ruling rejecting the claim that local governments are preempted by federal law and lack the authority to deny hazardous projects slated for their communities also applies to San Luis Obispo County, where Phillips 66 has made similar arguments.

If built, the Phillips 66 oil trains terminal would allow more than 7 million gallons of crude oil to be shipped via rail to its local refinery each week. The project would make it possible for Phillips 66 to refine volatile and carbon-intensive tar sands crude from Canada and elsewhere in the United States. Tar sands crude,

when prepared for transport, is thinned with an unstable blend of chemicals have been known to explode in derailment incidents, which have become increasingly frequent in recent years.

As evidenced by the 10 oil train explosions in the United States over the past two years, and the tragic explosion that killed 47 in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, similar trains in California would place communities’ health, safety, and environment at serious risk. Trains servicing the Phillips 66 project would have traveled from the north and south through hundreds of major California cities and smaller communities, including Los Angeles, Sacramento, Davis, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Jose. These trains also would have jeopardized numerous ecologically sensitive areas including the San Francisco Bay and California’s iconic central coast.

 

Public interest groups released the following statements:

“The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission listened to the people of this community, who overwhelmingly oppose this oil trains project. Our community is ready to move beyond dangerous oil projects and towards a clean energy economy that works for all of us. Should this project be appealed, we expect the Board of Supervisors to follow the Planning Commission’s lead and reject this project once and for all.” – Heidi Harmon, SLO Stop Oil Trains Campaign

“Today is a milestone in our struggle to defeat the Phillips 66 oil train terminal project. The majority of Planning Commissioners, paying heed both to the recommendations of their Staff as well as the thousands of SLO County citizens who oppose the project, voted to deny it. The fact that the Boards of Supervisors of every coastal county between San Francisco and Los Angeles was also opposed to the project played an important role as well. The County Board of Supervisors will next consider and vote on the project which turns the focus on the North County District One race between candidates Steve Martin and John Peschong.” – Charles Varni, SLO County Surfrider

“Today’s vote is a great victory for the people of San Luis Obispo and California, as well as for the planet. This victory demonstrates the people power of communities all around the state who organized and participated in the public process to defeat this ill-conceived and dangerous project. Kudos also to the local residents who refused to be intimidated by a huge and politically powerful corporation that wanted to put profits before community safety.” – Andres Soto, Communities for a Better Environment

“The people of California owe eternal thanks to the San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and the County Planning Commission. If Phillips 66 chooses to appeal this decision, millions will be watching the board of supervisors to see if they will choose to uphold state environmental law and the county’s general plan, or disregard the judgment of their own commissioners, the advice of county planners and the overwhelming will of the people.” – Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, Stand.earth

“The planning commission’s decision is a huge victory for the people of San Luis Obispo and all across California. We can all breathe a huge sigh of relief that, at least for now, Phillips 66 will not be allowed to put our communities, water, and wildlife at risk from oil train explosions and fires and toxic air pollution. We applaud the planning commission for standing up to the oil industry and putting the health and safety of their constituents first.” – Valerie Love, Clean Energy Campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity

“This project, wisely rejected by county authorities, is another example of how Big Oil wants the American people to shoulder the risk for crude oil transport — whether an exploding train or a leaking pipeline — while the dirty polluters rake in the profits. Ultimately, the best way to safeguard our air and water, our communities, and our families is to speed up the transition to clean energy prosperity and keep dirty, dangerous fuels like tar sands crude in the ground.” – Andrew Christie, Chapter Director, Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter

“The Planning Commission deserves credit for listening to all the evidence, the powerful denial recommendation from their staff and the outpouring of community opposition and for denying this dangerous project,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the Environmental Defense Center. “This was the right decision and the only possible decision if the goal is to keep our communities and environment safe.” – Linda Krop, Chief Counsel, Environmental Defense Center