Colin Walsh and former Davis City Councilmember Michael Harrington used their public comment time to put forward arguments against Nishi on Tuesday night.
Colin Walsh said, “The baseline features of the Nishi project, which will be on the ballot this spring, refer to the project development agreement which is an ordinance that was passed by this council. That ordinance calls for mitigation measures cited in a CEQA document.
“Those mitigation measures call for air filtration systems with 95 percent efficiency for the buildings and positive air flow pressure for the buildings. That air filtration system, as I understand it, may not actually exist. So the city council is calling for air filtration systems that may not actually exist.
“But much more concerning to me is what’s happening outside those buildings,” he continued. “The other ordinance, that was passed that night, allows for zoning on Nishi. Allows for urban agriculture, day cares, preschools, I can’t imagine are these indoor only preschools. Do these preschools not get a play yard? There’s nothing in the ordinance that it’s an indoor only preschool.”
He continued, “It also allows for outdoor entertainment. If you believe that there is a need for 95 percent air filtration on interior uses, how can we as the city of Davis allow children 
playgrounds outside in that air quality? How can we allow the workers in urban agriculture to work outdoors in that air quality?
“All of the city council voted to put this on the ballot. Many of the city council candidates are in favor of this, but there are two that are not,” he said. “They have my support because they are looking out for the children in our community. I will absolutely vote no on Measure J, the Nishi project this June.”
Former Davis City Councilmember Michael Harrington also spoke against the Nishi project. He said, “The next council will be the one that looks at Measure R and the General Plan. It is critical that we have the right people up here.
“I have to tell you something about Nishi, I’m embarrassed that this council would ignore experts in air quality that say that there’s a problem over there, they think there needs to be another study and this council had no hutzpah, had no guts to tell Johnny Whitcombe, one of the richest people in Yolo County, to go spent $10,000 and verify that. All of you knew that two years ago.
“Whitcombe was down here saying to these students, I have no money. You have to minimize the affordable housing. This is embarrassing, as a member of this body. It’s embarrassing.”
He continued, “Affordable housing set aside for students is illegal under Federal Law and state fair housing law. What are you guys doing? You duped the students here. It’s illegal. You should recall this and fix it and put it on the ballot.”
He said, “I ran for council in 2000 to fix it for the children. My son was in the schools, they were jammed, they had 900 in a 600 elementary school. I have a ten year old down here tonight, I want to protect him. And I’m going to protect the lungs of the hundreds of thousands of young people that Johnny Whitcombe wants to bring here for his profit motives.
“You think they’re going to tell those parents in Japan and China, in North Korea or South Korea that their kids are unsafe here? They didn’t even do a study. How dare the council not require Johnny Whitcombe to do a study? Why, Brett, didn’t you vote, not yet? Why?
“You were elected and Robb Davis was elected by the same team that elected me. Why didn’t you guys vote, not yet? I’m embarrassed.”
There is one point on which Michael Harrington and I are in agreement with regard to the arguments around Nishi. I agree it is embarrassing that neither side is truly interested in more fact finding with regard to the true habitability and medical risk with regard to this site.
While it is true that the developer has shown no interest in pursuing more of the same type of air quality study for Nishi, it is equally true that the opponents to Nishi show no interest in epidemiological data that suggests that there is no actual increased risk of acute respiratory disease along the corridor from Vacaville to West Sacramento. If we are truly interested in health risks, surely we would want to know not only the parts/million of contaminants, but also if that amount posed any real world as opposed to theoretical health risks to the inhabitants. Embarrassing to think we would want only the facts that support our own position regardless of side.
Also we have people living on East Olive Dr for decades, the location is also sandwiched between the tracks and I-80, is there any evidence of health problems?
David
“the location is also sandwiched between the tracks and I-80, is there any evidence of health problems?”
According to the county epidemiologist who gathered data on this question during the Nishi 1 debate at my request, there is no evidence of increased risk at this location as measured by ER visits for respiratory illness.
So that would be a huge piece of the puzzle.
But East Olive is right next to Nishi, is the same distance from the freeway and the train tracks, the same wind direction and has been inhabited far longer. If there is no evidence of health effects there, then this whole thing is a canard.
Mike did not run on a platform to “fix it for the children.” He did nothing to reduce the school crowding when his son was in school. He is the master of revisionist history focused on his own heroics. This little speech is a sign of what is to come in the opposition’s campaign. “toxic soup” and “rich developers getting richer”. It has started to appear in my Facebook newsfeed and I’m wary of attempts to sway my vote by false claims and made up facts, followed by strategic comments placed to promote outrage.
Sharla
“He is the master of revisionist history focused on his own heroics”
Whether or not a reflection of reality, I applaud a well turned phrase.
“So that would be a huge piece of the puzzle.”
For me, actual harm to human health, not just ppm, should be the largest piece of the puzzle. Yet, when I bring this up with opponents to Nishi, I tend to get a shrug, a rapid pivot to another topic, or at most a very hesitant, “Well yes, I suppose we should look at that too”. Note this is a tendency and does not apply to all. I have found some Nishi opponents who are willing to consider all aspects, just as are some proponents.
I’d have to disagree with this statement, since fact finding (e.g., a study that’s actually performed on the site) is exactly what some (including Dr. Cahill, I recall) have suggested.
That part is pretty simple, really. Not sure why that’s even “controversial”, in the eyes of some.
So simple you missed it… you talk air measurement data… don’t believe Mr Cahill has said word one about epidemilogy studies, which is what Tia is talking in the quoted piece.
Think.
It’s pretty difficult to determine health impacts without knowing what’s actually there.
Think.
That’s the whole point that I was making. Nishi isn’t as unique as has been presented. It’s right next to West Olive, same distance from freeway, between tracks and freeway, and yet the data suggests – according to Tia – no evidence of health impacts even though I believe the area has been inhabited since the 60s.
My view is that everyone has spent so much effort pushing for new data, that not enough attention has been paid to existing data we already have that may well be sufficient to make a reasonable decision.
Not sure if my comment above was responded to, since there seems to be some kind of technical problem occurring that’s preventing me from seeing subsequent comments.
It seems to me that the first step is to actually conduct a study on-site (as was suggested a long time ago).
After that’s done, arguments can then be made regarding characteristics that are unique to the site, health impacts, “floral assassins” (as another commenter once worded it), outdoor activities, etc.
There really isn’t much value to be had regarding repetitive arguments – prior to conducting a study on the site, itself.
Ron,
Interesting as your comment neatly illustrates my point. I was discussing the importance of other aspects of the issue of health effects ( epidemiological studies) , and you re directed back to the issue of the contaminants only without any regard to their effects in this setting.
Just noticed this comment:
Yeah – I’d suggest finding out what’s there, before discussing health effects. How does that “neatly illustrate your point”? Why is this even “controversial”?
Also, do you think that existing (e.g., Bay Area) standards were just made up – perhaps on a blog somewhere?
Parents should have the freedom to allow their children to swim in, and slurp, toxic soup.
Ron:
That’s the whole point that I was making. Nishi isn’t as unique as has been presented. It’s right next to West Olive, same distance from freeway, between tracks and freeway, and yet the data suggests – according to Tia – no evidence of health impacts even though I believe the area has been inhabited since the 60s.
My view is that everyone has spent so much effort pushing for new data, that not enough attention has been paid to existing data we already have that may well be sufficient to make a reasonable decision.
Mom and Dad lived there in the late 40’s. Slatter’s Court originated in the ’20s. The area has been inhabited for roughly 100 years.
And where apparently a number of local UC students lived in those early decades.
Thanks – was trying to be conservative in my estimation.
It is important to remember that in the early decades of Slatter’s Court the cars passing it on Highway 40 (the first paved auto road connecting Oakland and NY) were even closer to the residents than the cars on I80 and put out MUCH more pollution without any smog control equipment. The early trains also put out MUCH more pollution than the modern diesel electric trains. There is nothing stopping someone like Ron from paying Dr. Cahill to do another Nishi air study or even spending money to study the air on 8th street before the new homes are built (or the air around the proposed active adult neighborhood by the hospital).
Ken: Yeah, standards (and traffic amounts/patterns) change, over time. Changes in standards are probably one reason that folks are living longer, despite drastic increases in traffic.
Again, I’ve got nothing to say about other sites. But, there’s nothing to stop folks from voting against a particular proposal, due to the fact that a recommended study has not been conducted by the owner/developer. (The cost being a “drop in the bucket”, perhaps even compared to the political campaigns, alone.)
If a study showed that there was no problem, then it would no longer be an issue.
I find it odd that anyone can “make up their mind” regarding the risk, when a study hasn’t even been conducted on the site (as recommended by an air quality expert).
Yes the recourse that a concerned person has is a no vote.
David: It’s unnecessarily become a political football. Perhaps all of which could have been avoided, if the recommended study was conducted (as recommended a long time ago).
The “recommended study” would not provide information that you, a voter, could interpret and understand. It would require analysis by someone like Dr. Cahill. He is firmly, irrevocably opposed to development of any housing on the Nishi site. Obviously neither he nor any of his associates would be hired by the property owner to do the study, and my guess is that nobody else would be acceptable to those who are pushing so hard for this. He is a partisan on this issue and thus would not be an unbiased analyst.
More to the point, simply testing at the Nishi site would not provide any context nor would it answer the issue of relative risk. People are notoriously bad at risk assessment. We know from ongoing studies, including the study review from LA that Dr. Cahill will happily send to you, that there are health risks associated from living anywhere near roadways of any kind. That there are measurable fine particles 1000 feet from a freeway or any busy road. That they are likely measurable even at greater distances.
Risk is a relative thing. Playing at the batting cages that are 100′ from I-80 on the south side (further east) carries some health risk. I have never heard any comment about the exposure of kids on that site on a daily basis to freeway pollutants.
We also know that exposure to fine particle material and gases can be mitigated. That different forms of mitigation are more effective for different situations. We know that exposure to pollutants at low wind speeds such as what you’d get during atmospheric inversions can be significantly mitigated by vegetative barriers close to the source, and that all that really matters in that situation is the density of the vegetation. At higher wind speeds it is more complex and requires somewhat more careful plant selection and placement, but we have good evidence that vegetative barriers work and they are now a recommended strategy for mitigation by the ARB and the EPA. If you add to that the indoor filtration systems, it is probable that a resident at Nishi will have cleaner air most of the time than anyone else living within 1000 feet of any freeway, or orchard, or busy roadway.
If all of that still doesn’t meet your risk threshold, then I suggest you not live there or anywhere else close to any busy roadway. Singling out this site is not rational. Admittedly, most risk assessment we do every day is not entirely rational. But no amount of on-site testing, without full-scale testing along the I-80 corridor and interpreted by a balanced panel of risk assessment professionals, will satisfy those who are demanding it or those who are highly risk averse.
It’s a political football because people are bent on defeating any housing project at all costs. If it weren’t this issue, there would be another.
I would add in response to your previous comment that standards may change, but this is an area that has been inhabited for a long time. There’s a reason I asked Tia the question I did. If there were really health problems here, it would have shown up by now. As it stands, this seems more like a theoretical health risk than a real one. I’m sorry but testing would have just pushed the goalposts down the field without resolving the core issue. The core issue is that there are people who don’t want student housing in the city.
There is no factual basis for this statement. There is literally no one that I’m familiar with who is “bent on defeating any housing project at all costs”. That’s essentially a stereotype.
In fact, it seems that most of the folks who are still commenting on the Vanguard actively downplay the recommendation to conduct a study on-site.
That is true, but it has nothing to do with air quality (and was discussed in the comments from yesterday’s article).
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/03/arguments-for-and-against-nishi/
“There is no factual basis for this statement. ”
Never let it be said that Ron doesn’t have a sense of humor.
“In fact, it seems that most of the folks who are still commenting on the Vanguard actively downplay the recommendation to conduct a study on-site.”
You’re failing to account for the difference between project proponents and project opponents. My comment was aimed toward opponents.
Your comments are (almost) always “aimed toward opponents”. The trouble is that very few of them are left on the Vanguard. (Seems like a few, at least, have gravitated toward another, unnamed site.) 🙂
It wasn’t in reference to people posting on the Vanguard
Don: It seems unlikely that a UCD professor specializing in exactly THIS TYPE of scientific study would purposefully use it to support some (unexplained) personal bias regarding a site that he otherwise has no connection to. (Unless he suspects that the site is not suitable, based upon preliminary data.)
Even if true, the data could be analyzed by someone with similar expertise, rather than hashing it out with a bunch of proponents on a blog.
Again, no logical explanation has been put forth to justify purposefully ignoring the recommendation to conduct a study on-site. The recommendation was made a long time ago.
From Thomas Cahill: ” Air quality issues aside, the property is far too valuable for just student housing. “
David: I would not automatically assume that this comment (made to you, I assume) is related to his scientific analyses. That’s quite a leap.
That might be akin to suggesting that scientists studying global warming have some unexplained agenda (unrelated to global warming) that is influencing their results. (Some seem to believe that, however.)
The comment suggests that he would oppose the site regardless of the air quality concerns.
I’m hoping to sign off, now. There really isn’t much value to be had in pursuing this topic further, and I’ve got other stuff to do. And again, I’m not the best source to discuss air quality (especially on a blog primarily consisting of supporters of the development).
David: “The comment suggests that he would oppose the site regardless of the air quality concerns.”
Again, it’s a leap to make that conclusion. You’re suggesting that “because” he made some casual comment to you (for whatever reason), then all of his scientific analyses and recommendations are based upon (and being used to support) his belief that the site should be used for other purposes.
In other words, you’re questioning his professionalism, based upon that comment.
How’s it a leap, he out right stated it.
As a side note, I suspect that if I made a comment like yours (but in an opposite direction), I’d be roundly jumped on, by some commenters. (Probably for an extended period, with demands for an “apology”, etc.)
In any case, scientists can have opinions outside of their scope of work. But, it should not “appear” in their professional analyses, and there’s no reason to suspect that’s occurred. (That’s one reason for peer reviews, etc.) Again, Dr. Cahill has no personal connection to that site, that I’m aware of.
That other site seems to be picking up steam.
Mark… David was talking W Olive… you’re talking Olive/”E Olive”… you are both correct.
David:
The following is what I recall, regarding the arguments. Admittedly, I’m not following this topic as closely as some others.
The Nishi site has unique characteristics (e.g., a slight depression, and braking from a reduction of lanes on the freeway). Train braking, as well. (Again, not sure I’m covering everything, here.)
Arguments have been put forth regarding wind patterns (e.g., at the airport, which may, or may not be applicable).
I recall that proponents once stated that there were no “standards” to measure against. Turns out that isn’t the case, since they apparently do exist in the Bay Area. I’m assuming that they didn’t create those standards out of “thin air”, so to speak. And, we already know that measurements nearby exceed those standards. I guess that some are “comfortable”, with that.
Testing may reveal that the site is less, or more polluted than the nearby sites. But, until that’s done, no one really knows. I really have no comment regarding other sites on Olive, but would refer you to whatever Dr. Cahill might say about that.
Again, no one has put forth any logical argument to justify a lack of testing, on the site. (As recommended a long time ago.) Until that’s done, arguments put forth are simply a lot of “hot air”.
I don’t buy that it’s unique from the area right next to it. My view is we have enough data both in air quality and health impacts to go forward with putting this project to a vote.
I think most of the people who are calling for the air quality tests are people who are not going to support a project under any conditions.
Cahill himself told me in an email he believes student housing a waste of valuable space at Nishi. He’s entitled to his opinion certainly. But that’s not an air quality issue.
I agree with this, and your subsequent post. AQ measurements are one thing… health effects, including morbidity and mortality are something quite different. Tia gets this, I believe you do, and so do I. Suspect 90% of the “toxic soup” folk have brown eyes… the other 10% appear to be a quart short.
Oh, yeah – and the raised freeway, uniquely at the Nishi site. (Again, though – I’m not the best person to put forth arguments regarding this issue.)
Still haven’t heard any logical reason to avoid doing a study on the site, itself. As recommended a long time ago.
The freeway is raised for only a small portion of the Nishi Project. Someone pointed out to me that Cahill’s book or article lists ten characteristics of Nishi, of which 9 are a concern for East Olive. He said nothing about Lincoln40.
I’m sure that one can dig up “alternative facts”, in the absence of actual data from the site. 🙂
I’m just giving you actual facts
And yet you do, time after time… the fact the freeway is elevated, makes it more likely that the dispersion of pollutants will pass over Nishi, and deposit further downwind.
Suggest you focus on what your expertise is…
Really?
Cost? the likelihood that the results would be damn near the same (or less) than where measurements have already been taken? Delay? Questioning of results if someone other than Cahill’s team does them? Questioning of the results if there are not enough “stations” used for measurements? Lack of epidemiological correlation? None of those “logical”?
Whatever…
Not really, other than noting that the recommended study has not been done. Despite the fact that the recommendation was made a long time ago.
Your response to me (above) bears repeating, (below):
“Suggest you focus on what your expertise is…”
Not likely. Compare the costs to the advertising campaigns, for example. Or the cost of possibly “losing” again, at least partly because the recommendation was disregarded.
Maybe. Pretty much guesswork, at this point. I understand that preliminary results already exceed existing standards.
Well, the recommendation was first made how long ago? Why wasn’t it done, then? And, if the measure loses again as a result, how much longer will it then be delayed? And, if studies show that it’s even worse than expected, might a “delay” be the least of the problems?
Criticizing a study that hasn’t even been conducted, while simultaneously suggesting that it’s not needed. That is a different approach, I suppose. Not sure it contains any “logic”, though.
The site was studied. There is a 250 page report available. The researcher pressing for further testing is, unfortunately, an active partisan on the issue and has been for two years. There would be little point in further testing on the site. The results would not be meaningful. At this point the air quality issue is pretty much a red herring, and the call for further testing appears to simply be a delay tactic.
The arguments on this issue are established and there is little to add to them.
LOL, you just made me spit my Corona.
Thanks, Keith.
Ironically, air quality has not been my primary concern, nor is it an area that I’ve paid a great deal of attention to. There are folks who seem honestly concerned and knowledgeable regarding it, though. (And, it seems to me that there’s been more effort to downplay those concerns, than vice-versa.)
In any case, I guess I’m the only one left on this site to offer some limited counter-point on the issue.
“no evidence of health impacts even though I believe the area has been inhabited since the 60s.”
I want to clarify what I have stated based on the information provided by the county epidemiologist. There is no evidence of increased health care impacts along the I-80 corridor from Vacaville to West Sacramento. This would imply that the risk along this corridor is not increased over that of the other neighborhoods in Davis.
.
To paraphrase Don’s comment, above: “The
researchernurseryman pressingforagainst further testing is, unfortunately, an active partisan on the issue and has been for two years.” 🙂Why do I have the feeling that I’ll soon regret responding? (No – it won’t be due to any new arguments being presented.)
Nah, I think we can leave it there. I’ll just point you back to my longer comment, above, about why I think testing on the site won’t be productive in the manner it is proposed.
I fully support continued research on the gaseous and particulate pollutants associated with roadways, freeways, rail traffic, agricultural operations, and other activities that generate possible increases in health risks. I support active regulation at the state level, through our current process whereby regulatory scientists review the weight of the evidence and develop mitigation strategies. I support expanding educational outreach about these impacts so people can make informed decisions. I would like to see more grant funding via taxpayer-funded sources such as NSF to expand research on these urban planning issues.
What I do not support is implementing an ad hoc land use policy for a specific site in this manner. I think it is being presented in a manner that lacks context, as I note below. And I think mitigation strategies are being proposed for this project to a degree that you simply don’t see elsewhere. So for those reasons I am comfortable with the proposed development on this site. Others will not be. Perhaps that will be a deciding factor in the election, but given what really mattered to people last time (traffic), I doubt it.
I am in agreement with all your points, for whatever it’s worth…
You might be right. But, I can think of approximately $5.6 million reasons and counting (see comments in referenced article, below) regarding what might matter this time (e.g., without an innovation center component to help offset costs).
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/03/arguments-for-and-against-nishi/
I don’t believe you have reasonable basis for asserting that the project will cost the city money. That has been discussed at the Finance and Budget Commission and they reached a different conclusion. People can look at the underlying assumptions and make up their own minds about that.
As with the air quality issue, I think that the city’s financial condition is really a separate and rather more global concern, having largely to do with the inability to contain costs and a chronic shortage of revenue sources. You can’t really point to any specific development proposal, or any one neighborhood, or any specific park or swimming pool, and state that it is the cause of the city’s ongoing budget shortfall.
There are some candidates who seem to have a grasp of this larger financial issue, and others seem to be less informed about it. Budget issues don’t, unfortunately, make great political campaign topics. Asserting that Nishi will cost the city money is tenuous at best, and the commission that reviews that issue found otherwise. Asserting that Nishi and other developments are the cause of the city’s budget problems is simply fallacious.
I didn’t create the commissioner’s analysis, nor are the related comments limited to those from me (alone). Also, the city isn’t even using an external analyst, as they did last time (and ultimately “disagreed” with).
Regarding traffic, I guess one is to assume that the 700 parking spaces will be filled with cars that never move.
Again, all discussed in the other article’s comment section.
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/03/arguments-for-and-against-nishi/
I don’t make any such assumption. I assume that since they cannot exit to the east, they will not impact Richards directly.
“I didn’t create the commissioner’s analysis”
But you are repeating an unadopted analysis that the majority of the commission rejects for specific reasons.
Probably best to direct comments regarding the other article, there (instead of here).
I noticed that few “took on” the other (noteworthy – regarding fiscal issues in particular) commenter underneath that article. I wonder why? 🙂
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/03/arguments-for-and-against-nishi/
My understanding is that Matt and Ray herent views on how to model city costs onto projects. I fundamentally disagree. And as I argued yesterday would again point out that (A) if the figures you are citing are remotely accurate the city has real problems beyond a single development and (B) that a 15 year time horizon is too long to assess the impact of developments.
And – the external consultant (EPS). But hey, it’s not like EPS does these types of analyses for a living. (Just kidding.)
Good thing we got rid of them, this time. What a pain in the neck they are. Damn anti-growthers! 🙂
And yeah, good thing that the city doesn’t have any “real” fiscal challenges, already. And, that existing developments are already fully paying the bills.
What a relief!
The city has plenty of fiscal challenges, but the general fund balance is not going to go into the red any time soon unless there’s a recession.
>Playing at the batting cages that are 100′ from I-80 on the south side (further east) carries some health risk.
The time has come to shut down the bicycle trail between Davis and Sacramento. Not only does it run right alongside I-80, it is sandwiched between the freeway and the railroad. The value of exercise chosen by the bicyclists is outweighed by the need for US to save the bicyclists from themselves, as they obviously don’t know the harm they are doing to themselves breathing in the toxic air from the freeway, and the choice to do so must be taken away from them, by US.
Particularly as your respirations go up the faster you pedal… pumping that toxic soup in, like a bong!
Good points!