This week, from a submission through the Vanguard anonymous submission system, Yolo Leaks, we learned of an undated letter from John Whitcombe, one of the owners of the Nishi Property, to Mary Hayakawa, Executive Director of UC Davis Real Estate Services, asking the university to consider a title transfer of a portion of the Nishi project.
While the Vanguard is in the process of gathering additional information, we are told the letter is fairly recent.
Mr. Whitcombe writes, “Because access for West Olive Drive was deemed part of a Richard’s Blvd. traffic solution Nishi Gateway LLC is acquiring rights for an easement to widen that segment of Olive Drive connecting to our property. The values which would have been created by the city project adequately funded the infrastructure requirements of the site.”
That may have happened as recently as this Friday. The Vanguard learned on Friday of a court case involving the Royal Ganesh Hotel and Nishi, that may have resolved the issue, allowing Nishi to have their easement and the hotel to control their adjacent land for future uses.
Mr. Whitcombe’s letter asked the university to “consider a title transfer of a portion or all of the Nishi property to the University of California in order to proceed with this project. Under that scenario, we envision utilizing an inclusion model, with planning and development of uses focused on meeting university needs.”
Some of the many opportunities might include:
- Working together to develop internally subsidized student housing;
- Conveniently located midrise housing for faculty and staff;
- Space for the relocation of current uses, thereby liberating campus land for higher-purpose use;
- Facility opportunities to enable UC Davis to avoid competing for existing off-campus locations.
Mr. Whitcombe closes: “We truly believe formal collaboration between the Nishi Partners and the University is in everyone’s best interest. Although we were disappointed that our efforts to include the city narrowly missed approval, we, now with this approach, may have more flexibility in addressing specific UCD priorities on a site rated #1 by the Strategic Growth Council of the State of California for sustainability opportunities.”
While we await further documentation, on the surface it would appear that Nishi is an ideal location for student housing. However, there are concerns about the air quality on the site that could prove to be a barrier.
We noted that, on August 3, UC Davis and Bob Segar held an outreach meeting on the Russell Fields issue at the Senior Center. At that time, Mr. Segar is reported to have stated that the university has no interest in developing Nishi, reportedly due to infrastructure costs for a campus connection as well as concerns about air quality.
Thomas Cahill last spring provided the Vanguard with some of his views on the site. He believes, “The site has serious air quality threats, far worse than the average California freeway.” Moreover, he believes “[i]ndoor air can be mitigated, but outdoor mitigation gives only a very modest reduction in the threats.”
As such, he told the Vanguard, “I supported a research and innovation center with ultra-filtration to protect the workers but with the absolute minimum of on-site housing. I stated that if there were to be any very limited housing, it must follow a protocol.”
I have a somewhat different view of the available evidence. That is that the overall risk on the site is actually fairly low – lower than the general risk of respiratory cancer. And while I understand the problem of outdoor uses, I still think, given a relatively short stay, indoor filtration, and the like, the exposure here is probably not going to be enough to put students at real health risk.
That said, reading Mr. Cahill’s note to me, he offers that the standard here should be based on the “precautionary principle.” He writes, “This requires that in the face of uncertainty, I would have to choose on the basis of the most conservative estimate of the impact, which is almost always lower than the scientist’s bottom number. In Davis, this means that if there is any reasonable chance that I and my colleagues are right, I would have to reject residential use and maximize protection of workers in commercial or research facilities.”
However, he adds, “The best way to solve this is to have better data, covering at least a year and including all the most toxic components. This is what I recommended in Jan 2015.”
Indeed, what he outlines is one year of data. He calls for an independent review of the studies and the project. The apartment proposal should include pressurized ultra-filtration. Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. And then, “Publish the results in the peer reviewed literature the success, partial success, or failure of this effort.”
Mr. Cahill notes that, in January 2015, he proposed this, but this was not done. In the heat of the election, it was not the best time to have new studies demanded, but given that we now have the benefit of time, doing the study could take an important issue off the table.
While I believe the traffic issue was the most important issue before the voters, dealing appropriately with both the affordable housing issue as well as the air quality issue could reopen the door.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So we are opposed to a UC Davis only Nishi?
I’m not in favor of it, because while it addresses housing, it doesn’t address revenue needs. I’d like to hear Ron’s proposal for how we deal with the city’s revenue needs, because he’s always got an argument against development.