DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council will consider whether to relocate the Davis Daytime Respite Center from its current site at 530 L St., as a new staff analysis shows potential set-up costs ranging from under $150,000 to nearly $2.75 million, depending on the location.
In a report prepared for the Feb. 17 City Council meeting, Social Services and Housing Director Dana Bailey and Public Works Director Stan Gryczko presented a comparative review of city-owned properties that could house the respite center, including the Civic Center Gym at 23 Russell Blvd., 512 Fifth St., and the duplexes at 809 11th St., in addition to the existing site.
The council directed staff on Nov. 18, 2025, to analyze possible alternative locations, including but not limited to the Civic Center gym, and to return with cost estimates and a plan to address neighborhood relationships.
The Davis Daytime Respite Center provides meals, mail access, daytime rest and case navigation services for people experiencing homelessness. The city’s current General Fund budget for homelessness-related services is $1,268,153, and annual operating costs for the respite center total $501,616.
Staff evaluated each site using a SWOT framework — strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats — and produced planning-level cost estimates that vary widely.
Continuing operations at 530 L St. using rented modular buildings would cost an estimated $225,000 to $275,000 for set-up, or $375,000 to $425,000 if the modular units are purchased.
Relocating to the Civic Center Gym would require substantially higher investment. Staff estimate set-up costs between $2.7 million and $2.75 million, driven by mold remediation, roof and truss repairs, HVAC installation, interior improvements and potential ADA upgrades.
At 512 Fifth St., projected set-up costs range from $250,000 to $300,000 with rented modular buildings, or $400,000 to $450,000 if purchased. Improvements at 1101 H St./809 11th St., currently configured as a duplex, are estimated between $78,500 and $148,500.
Staff wrote that “no single site is without material constraints,” noting that any relocation decision would require balancing cost, timeline, neighborhood compatibility, service effectiveness and long-term city priorities.
In addition to site options, the report outlines several operational models. These include closing the 530 L St. location and shifting to appointment-based case management, maintaining current operations as a navigation site, narrowing services to basic needs only, relocating basic services to a yet-to-be-determined site, or contracting operations to an independent provider.
Staff recommend that the council determine its preferred operational model before committing to capital investments at any site and maintain continuity of operations at the current location through June 30, 2026.
Since the dissolution of the Downtown Streets Team contract in October, the city has continued respite services through two temporary city staff positions. Staff said this approach “has preserved essential services without the cost premium associated with the terminated contract or re-procurement of contracted services.”
The report states that case navigation services may be funded through the city’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant, potentially supporting limited-term positions through June 30, 2028.
City staff also are exploring a coordinated transportation option to connect individuals with the 24/7 emergency shelter operated by Fourth & Hope in Woodland, which provides shelter beds, meals, hygiene services, case management, transitional housing and substance use treatment.
At the Nov. 18 meeting, council members questioned both the center’s current location and its operational model.
Then Vice Mayor Donna Neville cited fiscal constraints.
“I know what I’d love to do if we had all endless amounts of money and resources. We don’t have that. Clearly. We are in a very serious fiscal situation,” she said.
Neville also said she does not see the current site as a permanent solution. “I do not believe that the current location is the right place for the respite center,” she said.
Councilmember Gloria Partida said the city must clarify the center’s purpose before making structural or locational decisions.
“There’s not a perfect location, there’s not a perfect solution. We have to more clearly define what it is that we as a city want to do,” she said.
Partida added that commonly tracked outcomes may not capture the full value of services provided.
“If we ask ourselves how many people have been brought in out of the cold … how many people have been connected to services and made to feel like they’re cared about? Those are all successes as well,” she said.
Then Mayor Bapu Vaitla described the current model as stretched beyond its original intent.
“To me it feels like we need to get back to basics and provide the services associated with respite. Well, better,” he said, adding that the center’s existing approach “is just, it’s not working very well in terms of returns to investment.”
Councilmember Linda Deos said clearer performance measures are needed before decisions are made. “I do need metrics. I do need to see how do we know what’s happening there? How do we know what success is?” she said.
The council on Tuesday is expected to weigh relocation costs, neighborhood impacts, performance measures and staff recommendations as part of broader budget deliberations and long-term planning for the city’s homelessness response.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I can’t imagine that anyone will want this in their neighborhood.
It’s going to be a tough sell.
And then what?
You tell me. Where should it go? What neighbors should be told just to deal with it?
I don’t know that answer. This is not my preferred policy anyway.
But one thing to observe is diffused power, by that I mean only one councilmember is potentially vulnerable for upsetting neighbors in a given location given district elections.
Yup. And that Councilmember has stated they don’t want it there, so they are covered politically. The others can say they’d like to move it, but ‘we just don’t have the money’, so District 3 can continue to suck it. And on Tuesday the homeless advocates will come out and gaslight the neighbors that they should continue to suck it, those who were willing to give it a chance and are beyond wits end putting up with the effects of the Respite Center, and someone will trot out the promises made to the neighborhood nearly 7 years ago and say, ‘no no no really, we’ll do all this, this time!’. But Charlie Brown is done running for the football and having it pulled away. This time, Charlie Brown is going to take the football and shove it way up Lucy’s *@#%$. And then Max Rexrod’s for shoving district elections up Davis’ arse.
Another good reason to get rid of district elections.
Nobody seems to want to do that however – at least not those in power
Why should they? It keeps them in power, and it keeps the “Yolo Machine” in power. The same machine that gave us the unscheduled Esparto fireworks show.
Fair point
What’s the status on the Santa Monica suit before the CA Supreme Court? If they affirm the appellate decision, Davis is free to go back to citywide elections. It may take a citizens’ initiative.
Richard, the City of Santa Monica website shows the following, but nothing additional since July 2024.
July 9, 2020 — Court of Appeal Opinion – The Court of Appeal issued its opinion ruling in favor of the City on both claims raised by Plaintiffs, reversing the trial court’s judgment, and ordering the trial court to enter judgment in the City’s favor.
“A neighborhood organization and a resident sued the City of Santa Monica, which uses at-large voting to elect its City Council. The plaintiffs claimed this system discriminated against Latinos, which is the term all parties use. After a bench trial, the trial court agreed and ordered the City to switch to district-based voting. We reverse and enter judgment for the City because the City violated neither the California Voting Rights Act nor the
Constitution.”
August 18, 2020 — Petition for Review – Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting review by the California Supreme Court.
September 20, 2023 — Opinion of the California Supreme Court
“We conclude the Court of Appeal misconstrued the CVRA. To prevail on a CVRA claim, a plaintiff who has established the existence of racially polarized voting in an at-large system need not prove that the protected class would constitute a majority — or, as the City proposes, a near majority — of a hypothetical single-member district.
Because the Court of Appeal did not evaluate the dilution element of the CVRA under this standard, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the Court of Appeal for it to reconsider in the first instance the CVRA claim presented here.“
July 10, 2024 — Motion to Reissue Judgment filed by Pico Neighborhood Association.
Richard, here is an additional update on the Santa Monica situation.
”On Feb. 9, 2024, the California Court of Appeal sent the case back to the trial court for further review consistent with the California Supreme Court’s standards.
STATUS: Trial is scheduled for Oct. 26, 2026.”
” It’s going to be a tough sell. ”
Especially when the City made promises to one neighborhood that they never followed through on, over and over and over again, and the effects where and are so bad that a neighborhood 50% willing to give it a go is now down to around 10%. So what’s the solution? Probably for Davis Manor, Huntwood, and Old East Davis to continue to suck it. I wouldn’t bet on the Super Bowl, but I’ll take that bet. So much easier to continue to shovel S down an already open throat than to pry open a new throat to shovel S down, especially when the people who are not getting S shoved down their throats are seeing those that are. And just to make sure, those not wanting S shoved down their throats will of course cry out “Karens!” to those of us taking all the S for the rest of you, because that’s the “Davis Way” :-|
Looking at the four choices from both a practicality and fiscal perspective, locating the center on H Street/11th Street adjacent to Paul’s Place seems to be far and away the best option.
Epithets that said, David, you have said this is not your preferred policy. What do you prefer?
That would be my preference – expand Permanent Supportive Housing options, a la, Paul’s Place to accommodate the full community needs.
Put it in Woodland. Plenty of room, they’ve already got a “homeless” facility which has modular (residential) buildings which look like that. (Actually, they look a lot better than that.)
And that’s where the county seat and services are in the first place.
Why does every podunk town in the valley (including Davis) need their “own” homeless facility? Are these people attending UCD, riding their bikes to campus?
Ron, you should know by now that people, including homeless, have the right to live wherever they want, whether they can afford it or not.
But they have the right to live somewhere. And until we address that somewhere (realistically) we are going to have a problem.
That does seem to be the mentality behind this – and/or perhaps because Davis is the center of the universe.
Obviously, no one can be successful unless they live in Davis. All of the people who live in Woodland (or other cities) are just waiting for their chance, but they’ve been priced out and have to suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives. Periodically crossing over the greenbelt “moat” to see what life is like on the other side (but they have to be out by sundown). Just long enough to replace someone’s garbage disposal in Davis, for example.
The unhoused are constantly showing up. Just moving them around will not stem that flow and doesn’t address the underlying issues causing the problem. Resorting to personal responsibility won’t solve this, just as it won’t solve the obesity crisis. Both are driven by underlying societal and cultural forces that we’ve unleashed unwittingly.
They can “show up” just like anyone else. It doesn’t mean that a particular community has to provide services for them – which attracts them.
If another community (such as Woodland) provides services for them, are you stating that’s not “good enough”? And that they think so highly of Davis that they’ll end up there, regardless?
When did Davis become the center of the universe? It doesn’t even have much of an employment base – assuming that a job is the primary goal for a homeless person in the first place.
These are also generally not people attending UCD, either.
So what, from a community or homeless person’s perspective makes Davis “oh so special” that they have to be in that particular locale, compared to Woodland for example? Or, West Sacramento or Sacramento itself?
Services are constrained to county of origin. But is someone is living on the streets are you better off providing them with services or letting them further decompensate?
Last time I checked, Woodland, West Sacramento, and Davis are in the same county.
You and Richard seem to be putting forth responses which have no relationship to mine.
I would note, however, that there are differences between those three communities, for example, in terms of where to put these type of facilities. Isn’t that what this fight is supposedly about? Why force it where it creates problems? What, exactly, is the advantage for anyone (including homeless people) to do so?
There wouldn’t be much resistance (if any) in Woodland or West Sacramento, I suspect.
Woodland is the county seat, and West Sacramento is essentially adjacent to the state capitol.
My response is based on the need to educate people – not just you as to what the law says.
“But they have the right to live somewhere.”
Interesting comment. Doesn’t it go more like, “”Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?
Pretty sure that housing isn’t a “right” (so far, at least). Nor is food, medical care, etc.
I just checked, and it looks like childhood education is also not a “right” emanating from the federal government – instead, it’s apparently a right granted by individual states.
Depends on how you define rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…”
So everyone has those rights regardless if they feel they need to earn them or not?
That could be one way of looking at it. Also, just because you say housing is a human right, doesn’t dictate the manner and form of the housing.
So if someone says “f” it, I refuse to work. I just want to sit around and play video games all day.
You say they should have the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…?
That’s why I qualified it to “manner and form”
The Universal Declaration says so, according to Davis. (I believe it was created by the United Federation of Planets.)
But it probably would be nice if there were some basic, fundamental rights like that – worldwide.
There isn’t. Even if there was, it would have to be further defined/standardized.
For example, what type of housing? (I’ve seen housing on the other side of the U.S./Mexican border which might not “qualify”, for example.)
And what type of food? What type of medical care? (I believe that emergency care might already be a “right” in a sense, in this country.)
The Universal Declaration of Human Right was one of the original UN declarations, and it is worldwide, as far as it goes.
” . . . as far as it goes”.
(Apparently, not very far.)
Trump is right, regarding the ineffectiveness of the U.N. It’s more of an advisory committee, it seems.
And without U.S. support/participation, perhaps it would collapse entirely – like NATO.
I wonder what Putin thinks of the U.N. (Haven’t closely followed it, but I suspect they, as a whole, weren’t too happy about his invasion of Ukraine. I assume that the Russian delegate voted “for” it, however.)
East Davis, where the current respite center is located or where ever they choose to move it, maybe should have a “safety enhancement zone” established – triple consequences for violations of the law in the zone. This should extend North to include the Chestnut Park neighborhood. We do this for Picnic Day, so why not for this unwanted “event” in our neighborhood.
Problem is, there is no enforcement, nor resources to increase enforcement, and they already promised enforcement six years ago, and now they are promising it again, but it won’t happen again.