At October’s Planning Commission meeting, Thomas Cahill, a professor emeritus of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, testified, “If the Planning Commission should decide to support the Nishi proposal, the threats from air pollution (diesel and ultra-fine metals) are so grave that it should be modified to eliminate all residential housing.”
Others have told the Vanguard that, while the threat that Professor Cahill raises is real, the problem affects much of Davis. The belief of others is that it can be controlled via air systems and, if we accept Thomas Cahill’s concerns as unsolvable, we should not build there at all.
The problem according to Professor Cahill is that the “Nishi property is pinned between two major diesel sources, so that no matter which way the wind blows, the property will be impacted.”
He argues that diesel exhaust “is the most important of the old Prop.65 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), providing ~ 70% cancer impact of all the TACs combined.”
The analysis by the draft EIR seems to confirm Professor Cahill’s analysis here. It notes TACs are “used to indicate the quality of ambient air. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.”
Moreover, they cite other research: “The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel exhaust (diesel PM).” They add, “Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances.”
They note, “Major highways and roadways are also considered sources of TAC emissions, associated with the presence of diesel PM emissions from vehicle exhaust. I-80 passes along the southern end of the project site between Richards Boulevard and UC Davis exits. The annual average daily traffic volume on this segment of I-80 in the project vicinity is approximately 119,000 vehicles per day (California Department of Transportation 2014). The project site is also located adjacent to an active Union Pacific Rail Road line that carries both freight and passenger rail. Trains in Yolo County account for 10 percent of mobile diesel sources (ARB 2013c).”
Professor Cahill also cited students in the last decade who “have identified that ultra-fine metallic ‘wear’ aerosols from the erosion of brake drums and pads have devastating effects on the cardiovascular system, notably in early heart attacks from ischemic heart disease (IHD).”
At Nishi, he notes that I-80 has trucks descending from the often-congested elevated freeway section accelerate south of the Nishi property, which is downwind of I-80 in most weather conditions, while “Amtrak accelerates away from the Davis station north of the property, enhancing emissions, while heavy train traffic persists day and night.”
He also notes that, during common winter inversions, exhaust from these sources will “hover and linger” over the entire property.
Professor Cahill notes that they have ultra-fine aerosol data close to the Nishi property confirming in detail both the literature and model conclusions. He writes, “The peak of the ultra-fine elements at 2/7 (Fig. 22) extends from Friday afternoon until late Saturday.” Adding, “This was the only time in the study that the site was exposed to weekend traffic and it shows up clearly as the largest concentrations in the ultra-fine signal.”
In summary, he said that “the UC Davis Barnes study confirms in detail the threats to the Nishi property from both diesels and ultra-fine ‘wear’ aerosols from braking, despite a location far from the area of predicted greatest impact near the elevated section of the freeway.”
The draft EIR identifies the air quality impacts, even with mitigation measures that “are expected to result in substantial reductions to exposure levels of UFPs [ultra-fine particulates] and diesel PM.” The DEIR warns that “the level of effectiveness cannot be quantified.”
They conclude, “For this reason, and because ‘safe’ levels of UFP exposure and diesel PM exposure have not been identified by any applicable agency, or by a consensus of scientific literature, this analysis assumes that resultant levels UFP exposure and diesel PM on the project site could potentially be associated with a substantial increase in health risks. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.”
Professor Cahill warns that the DEIR “tries desperately to mitigate what is a ‘Perfect Storm’ of rail and roadway toxics.”
He argues for either a Research-Only option, or Research plus Hotel, as his preferred alternatives “since they provide for no residential housing.”
He writes, “The farthest north reaches could support apartments if special efforts are made to over-pressure the apartment blocks with ultra-filtered air inputs and the like, supported by canopy vegetation throughout Nishi. However, it will take years before the vegetation can grow large enough to materially reduce the air pollution.”
He adds that “in present conditions, it is my opinion that causing people, and especially vulnerable populations spending much of their time on the Nishi property, to move into a situation of such great potential harm is simply not supportable.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The irony here is that 4 of the five sitting council members voted to impose restrictions on fireplace use to protect the citizens of Davis from particulates.
It is equally ironic, as I recall, that Mr Cahill questioned the science behind that decision.
i don’t know why that’s ironic – perhaps the science supported one decision and not the other?
“Ironic” is not equal to “contradictory”. As to Prof Cahill, his credentials are impeccable. I think I understand why you “don’t know why that’s ironic”.
The irony I was talking about, is how the ‘decision makers’ “think”, (or actually “react”) to technical info, in favor of politics.
that’s a fair comment. i suspect council will ignore cahill both times in favor of the loudest voice.
more reason to at least look at an all r&d or an r&d/ hotel mix at nishi.
Perhaps Cahill was correct both times. After all, he is a distinguished scientist.
I
thinkbelieve your two sentences, independently and together, are true.What we do with the information is important. At face value, the science says a good part of Davis should have all residential units evacuated, if you believe in minimizing risks, at any cost.
There are those who not only hope, but expect/demand, that nothing bad can happen to anyone/anytime/for whatever reason. I believe in informed risk, and personal decisions and actions.
or perhaps we ought to study it more to see if there are ways to better protect ourselves from harmful taps.
“… protect ourselves from harmful taps.” Agree, IF we also weigh the implications on focusing only on that (TACS), and not on what taking actions (or inactions) to reduce/avoid TACS might mean.
A true environmentalist looks at the situations holistically, realizing a X% chance of A may be worth offsetting a Y% chance of B. [Assuming A & B are not fully desirable]
BTW, that’s what CEQA was meant for… disclosing the pros and cons of making any major decision. But, informed.
so you think cahill is wrong here? the ceqa report seems to agree with him other than on the view of mitigation.
No, I do not doubt Cahill’s findings. Do you have eyes, but cannot see what I’ve written? Ears, but do not listen?
There are always trade-offs to any decision folk make. We need to “weigh” them.
If Nishi never happens, I’ll lose no sleep. I do believe that if Nishi happens, the primary (and perhaps, exclusive MV access) should go onto the UCD transportation grid. Not Richards.
You are not “hearing” me, it’s clear. Am not arguing pro/con on the project. Am questioning process/logic/law arguments from those who are antagonists/protagonists. I’d like any decision to be based on facts and logic.
This is the same Thomas Cahill who gave the thumbs up to the New Harmony project before Council and the Planning Commission years ago when local physicians questioned the wisdom of putting a low income housing project directly adjacent to the freeway citing evidence showing the adverse impact of freeway pollutants on children’s developing lungs. He said all you had to do was put in high efficiency filtration systems in all of the homes and plant cedar trees along the frontage. Well, Nishi is planning on putting in the same type of high efficiency particulate fillters in their proposed housing. It is hard to imagine he supported housing for long income children directly adjacent to the freeway but now opposes housing for adults that is actually further removed from the freeway. Unfortunately, Dr Cahill has a long history of completely contradicting himself from year to year on this issue as well as his widely varying recommendations on wood smoke (probably because he is a self-admitted prolific wood burner for years).
No. If you know science, and depending how a question is asked, your results may differ. Dr Cahill has, in fact, been consistent, IF you understand the context of the comment/opinion. We all know your dissatisfaction on the wood burning thing (Dr Cahill’s ‘testimony’). Personal/technical animus?
Beyond that, your comment, Alan P, is “all over the place”… and I’ll assume that you meant “low income children” rather than “long income children”. Oh, and yes, children live in New Harmony, but that was not the primary goal/purpose of that housing. Next to greenbelt bike/ped path, bike lanes, bus transit, etc., great location for MF/affordable housing.
I thought prevailing wind direction was a big factor.
Yes, ‘prevailing’ wind direction is a key… but, there is the “wind rose”. Shows the probability of the wind coming from “all” directions.
See, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/wea_windrose2.pl
Will leave, as an exercise, probabilities of exposure to wind-borne toxics, to others.
The conditions described will be essentially the same for the existing residential units along Olive Drive. Are we to remove those units as well in our search for a no-risk future?
so you think poor people should be exposed to less air quality than more wealthy people?
Unfair response to a fair question. Have heard there is a proposal for ADDITIONAL res units on Olive (“Callori” property). Matt has fairly pointed out (indirectly) that you can’t have different views on Nishi, the Hotel/conference center, additional/existing residential development on Olive, relating to air quality, with out at least a “sniff” of being a hypocrite.
Did I actually point that out? I’m not sure I would use the term “hypocrite” but “political calculator” might work instead.
Please show me where I have ever said any such thing? I am simply pointing out the reality of the situation for those who appear to want to ignore it.
By the way DP, instead of attempting to put words in my mouth, why don’t you try to come up with something cogent to say yourself.
the reality of the situation is that people are arguing that we might have a dangerous air quality situation, but because we already have people who might be living in the same situation, it might be untenable to rectify it. i was simply being a bit sarcastic on the latter not attempting to put words in your mouth.
DP,
Interesting question. If Olive Dr. really is unsafe, what will happen to the lower income folks & homeless folks who live in that area?
This was the same argument that arose on the New Harmony project. The developer mitigated the problem with special air filters for the units closest to the freeway, and planted oxygenating trees next to those units as well.
The argument was raised by those who didn’t want “those” people nearby. The health concerns may well be valid, but c’mon, that’s NOT why they were raised!
I remember a project to provide a battered women’s shelter, and the neighbors cried out about “neighborhood traffic” concerns. Total BS.
hpierce,
I also remember the proposal for the shelter you mentioned; it is nauseating to remember a community of so many progressive tolerant minds had several (not all) folks who objected to a safe haven for children/adults who had survived a household with a domestic batterer.
have we ever testing to see if that treatment worked?
Very good question, altho not sure how you would test for it unless over a number of years. New Harmony is relatively new.
A transparent misuse of one’s societally-assigned status as an “expert” to further a personal political argument.
how so?
Air is not like water or soil. Where the toxins go may have tendencies, but can go any direction on a given day. Yes, the sources are nearby and the toxic potential real. However, the same argument can be made for many housing areas already in existence in Davis and elsewhere, and government agencies assigned to protect the public health do not call for the mass removal of housing from these areas. In fact, in southern California, one can travel for tens of miles in any freeway direction and see tens-of-thousand of new, dense housing units built adjacent to freeways twice as wide as I-80. No agency found the threat from those freeways an overriding concern worthy of stopping the projects. Not only the poor live next to tracks. In Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, wealthy people voluntarily purchased homes adjacent to railroad tracks with more daily diesel trains than Davis’ UPRR main line.
In Davis, Olive Drive is a perfect example. Children live there. They live there in apartment placed there relatively recently. Students live there, some in one set of high-rent apartments. A low-income Section 8 housing apartment was placed there by the City. Should students, children and low income, heck also high-income, people be exposed to such levels of air toxins? Should Olive Drive be evacuated, bulldozed and turned into a park, and people relocated to new housing built on farmland far from any arterial, at Davis taxpayer expense? OH, Olive Drive can’t be turned into a park, as children would be outside in that park. So should it be a preserve that can’t be used, or should we provide oxygen masks for the children who play there?
And what about the conference center on Richards? Will the developer be required to place New Harmony-style air filters in the air system? Will oxygen masks be required for guests to pass from the room to their car? Are they rich and privileged enough that their health doesn’t matter, or should they buy their own damn oxygen masks? What about Trackside? It is only a block from the UPRR mainline and shouldn’t be built because of air pollutants? Should the City condemn all of Old East Davis and build another park and give all the children in the park oxygen masks? Problem solved, no Trackside, no Old East Davis, no controversy, no downtown. Everyone has to go live out in the farm fields away from freeways. In tents.
Point is, if the societally-dubbed “expert” is so concerned, why is he not calling for the removal of residential — or at least poor people and unhealthy people and children — from Old East Davis and Olive Drive and Solano Park? Why are no government health agencies doing the same, and in fact why are government agencies encouraging transit oriented development near railroad tracks — aren’t the dangers to health overriding the benefits of being near transit? Why is the “expert” OK with people working on the Nishi site? Do people only take in toxins when they “live” but not when they “work”? Many people spend as much time at their workplace as they do at home. Are workers themselves expendable? Do they not breath?
How far does the toxic threat from the freeway and railroad go Mr. Expert? How much of Davis needs to be evacuated permanently? Our “expert” states his credentials and gives truths that air toxins source at nearby transportation corridors, then offers no thresholds of acceptability of toxic concentrations, no comparable sites where housing has been prohibited for health reasons due to proximity to similar corridors, no rough idea of how much of Davis should be bulldozed and left fallow due to proximity to I-80, I-113, UPRR or CNR. “It’s near a railroad and freeway.” Yup. So’s a lot of stuff.
My abode is blanketed daily by thick columns of diesel exhaust from Amtrak, UPRR, CNR. Why does the City/State/USA allow children and elderly and pregnant women to live in our neighborhood? Should our neighbors with children be reported to CPS for child endangerment? Why is our local societally-labeled “expert” not calling for removal of all residents within X distance of a transportation source where the prevailing winds blow Y particles for Z time, to population Q? Why is any one person any less important then a potential Nishi resident, or worker? Why up in arms about housing at Nishi, when workers there will also be exposed? Is Whole Foods really organic when diesel fumes from the adjacent railroad may contaminate the produce — AND WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
Expertly done.
But don’t move the children near the farm fields where they will be exposed to dust and particulate matter from the herbicides and pesticides.
Verbosely done, at least.
Good point about the farm fields. Where can we put the children? Do we have enough bubble suits in the basement of City Hall for all of them? Do minority children get the bubble suits first? Does white privilege extend to white children, or are children by definition ‘innocent’? Are some children more equal than others?
I know this is on another thread, but children need their safe space enclaves too.
Your use of quotation marks regarding the expertise of Dr. Cahill is inappropriate. He is considered a world expert on this subject. You can disagree with policy conclusions with respect to his data, but there is no question about his knowledge on this subject.
IMO if the project meets Air Resources Board guidelines, and the developers are making an effort to incorporate his recommendations in living areas and businesses, there is not a valid basis for blocking the project on air quality concerns. That doesn’t mean they aren’t real, it’s just a matter of risk assessment, likely exposure, the fact that these are short-term residential units, and it is a choice to live there. They aren’t proposing low-income housing, townhouses, or anything that might be attractive long-term to families. These are apartments.
The developers are fortunate in a way to have Dr. Cahill available to help them incorporate mitigation strategies. Some of those might be appropriate for existing developments as well, particularly landscaping. And there are certainly plants that grow very quickly if that is the primary goal in reducing particulate matter via vegetation.
There are many who feel the need to respect a title society gives someone for whatever reason. That is not my view. Many experts are deserved of respect. One of society’s most critical downfalls is labeling or allowing a title of respect and trust where none is deserved. Respect is earned.
Do you have some evidence that Dr. Cahill’s respect is unearned? http://physics.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/thomas-cahill
I know you like to be dismissive, but I think it is very inappropriate in this instance.
Are there examples where housing has been rejected by the ARB because adjacent transportation corridors produced too much air pollution?
True. The toxins are real.
So there are numbers? Numbers that say how long a resident can live in a residence at Nishi at given pollution levels before at significant risk of toxic exposure? That’s sort of like when someone tells me it’s OK to eat one swordfish in a mercury-laden catchment area, but two swordfish could expose me to too much mercury. No, thanks. An average swordfish doesn’t mean the one I eat wasn’t the one that ate the thermometer.
Will there be a disclosure statement for each resident to sign, acknowledging the risk, and the date on which one must move out, and not into another high-exposure district?
No one lives in apartments for a long time?
I’m sure they’ll jump at the chance.
Where on earth would someone buy such appropriate landscaping in Davis?
It is unlikely that anyone will live in these apartments for “a long time.”
My guess is the developers have already consulted with Dr. Cahill or his associates, or similar experts, on this project.
It seems to me that the toxicity of this exposure is limited in duration and intensity. So presumably there are regulations about that, but it is worth getting more information about that. I believe that apartments have been moved to the far side of the property to reduce exposure. I assume, but would have to verify, that siting and landscaping and some interior changes have been made to reduce exposure of residents and business workers to the particulates.
I guess my question is whether someone who lives at this site for a couple of years, in housing that has been designed with this site issue in mind, has any significantly greater health risk than people who live along the freeway in hundreds of other places. I know that in pesticide exposure, the risk factors are multiplied a hundred times over and more to make a large safety cushion with respect to exposure. But I haven’t read the reports on this to see how the risk was assessed.
Did you know that there is a tropical bamboo species that has been measured to grow 48″ in one day? Even here there are species that send up culms 30 – 40 feet tall in a six week period. Redwood trees grow fast, so do sycamores. Conifers are said to have special ability to screen particulate matter, and I know some of the research on that was here at UCD. An urban forest could be compatible with a combination of businesses and apartments at Nishi.
I stopped beating my wife in April, thank you.
What I am commenting on is that his arguments don’t pass the smell test, especially regarding choosing to attack Nishi while not setting off similar alarms for those at risk for who live and work in existing residences, nor concern for workers at the same site, nor explaining why non-mitigated housing is placed adjacent to housing en-masse throughout California. Where is the call or evidence that populations must receed a certain distance from major transportation corridors? Yes, there are studies that these people are more at risk, how is arguing against housing at Nishi any different than calling for the removal of housing on Olive Drive / Old East / Downtown / Solano Park ?
If it is only new residences the “expert” is concerned about, why have I not seen him at City Council meetings arguing against Trackside, just a block from the UPRR mainline with about 60 trains a day, and immediately adjacent to the CalNorthern with 4-6 trains a day? Why has he not called for re-visioning the so-called rail relocation to instead remove the UPRR mainline, since it is such a huge source of air toxins to Davis skies? Heck, why isn’t he arguing for an I-80 highway relocation? Let’s get that gross polluter away from our town, it’s killing our children.
Nishi is near major transportation corridors. These produce toxins. And Satan will uniquely curse the lungs of all who live at Nishi.
Thank you Dr. Cahill for sharing truth about the location of the Nishi proposed project. In view of what you have said here, the best action would be to plant an urban forest to buffer the toxic effects of the freeway from entering deeper into Solano Park, the new recital hall, the frat houses and downtown Davis. It would be beautiful and show that Davis looks at the big picture with long term conscious planning.
Reality “is” — “Truth” is malleable.
The urban forest will block the solar panels #doh!#.
Here’s one example of a study done at UCD regarding use of trees and landscaping to mitigate nearby pollution:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/research/ucd_aqp/Documents/Mitigation-Measures-Package-Report-5-Micah-v3.pdf
Alan
“Yes, there are studies that these people are more at risk, how is arguing against housing at Nishi any different than calling for the removal of housing on Olive Drive / Old East / Downtown / Solano Park ?”
It is very different. In the one case, the argument is against something that does not already exist. In the other, it would be opposing something that is already in existence. Just because we have made potential mistakes in where we have located housing in the past, does not mean that we would have to double down and repeat the same mistake.
Now I am saying that without any firm grounding in the science in question, but the principle remains the same regardless.
I wonder if they did more than this one study, but the thing they could also test is the soil. All the food grown there for the last few decades would have also absorbed it much as our bodies would? Some places I will not live because of this, and I grew up on a farm. It is hard to drive by some fields during spraying because of the toxic cloud.
Tia, I understand that. My point is, the argument is being made outside of science, by a scientist using his credentials. Saying it is near sources of air pollution is real, but air is a very fickle thing, it literally blows in the wind. Stopping a housing project based only on proximity to sources of air pollution does not call out the degree of risk. Sources such as those are literally exposing millions every moment of every day. If it is so critical, why are there not warnings for everyone nearer the sources?
With water, you can say, “We tested the water, and you can’t use this well for your new housing development, because it contains 300ppm of element X, and the limit set for public health is 100ppm. But at the same time, you would also immediately disconnect all current housing units connected to any tested wells that are above the public health limit, and truck in water if necessary. That’s where the hypocrisy lies.
You can do such tests with air, but the testing is quite complex and you can’t predict actual levels like you can with water, only do an overall study and find trends. If Nishi actually exceeded public health limits for air quality to the point housing shouldn’t be built, there would be some serious concentrated sources of air toxicity nearby that would need to be removed or reduced. Planting trees is certainly good for the environment overall by absorbing toxins and emitting oxygen, but it doesn’t necessarily reduce an individual’s exposure the way a municipal water cleasing unit or new source of water definitively reduces exposure to toxins in drinking water.
Leafblowers!!!!
Can one of the Vanguard moderators solicit Dr. Cahill for his views on leafblowers and human health impact; mainly in terms of urban/suburban particulate air pollution? (noise pollution as a bonus issue; the data here have been collected by most peoples ears on a near-daily basis!)–also the dispersal of grit, dust, etc. etc. etc. on surfaces (including thru partially open cracked-at-top car windows, open house windows, etc.)–I image many of the micron-order and smaller sized particles (that would otherwise stay on the ground if not for hurricane-force winds directed at the ground suspending them) can hang in the neighborhood air in light eddies for hours, at about the right height for people & other critters to breath them in.
I’ll be able to rest easier in my grave if leafblowers are banned before my peaceful last slumber (instead I suppose it is more likely that one will be whining and farting somewhere within earshot in the background as my casket is being lowered into the earth). I suspect not enough research has been done to clearly support a legal ban from a human health impact basis; we need Cahill’s opinion including recommendations for future research!
Allan Miller’s point about water vs. air quality issues misses important points. I have worked for a number of years on the issues of the human right to safe water . In the U.S., there are recent examples in CA, Detroit and Flint, Michigan and elsewhere that local and state governments have failed to take action even when there is confirmed data from water testing and from public health investigations that the water is contaminated and linked to health impacts. In these cases, for example, it has been the communities themselves, often poor and disadvantaged that had to organize, sometimes over many years, to get relief. Most recently in Flint, MI, after accumulating evidence from blood analysis that there were high levels of lead in the water resulting in a variety of well-documented serious health impacts, it took a major community uprising to get any relief. The problem was the local and state political agenda and water politics vs. community health and respect for people of color and low-income residents.