DAVIS, Calif. — After months of debate and community input, the Davis City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to continue operating the city’s daytime respite center at its L St. location through at least June 30, 2026, while directing staff to develop a transition plan that includes transportation to Fourth & Hope in Woodland and a detailed evaluation of a potential alternative site within the city limits .
Mayor Donna Neville framed the discussion as one rooted in both compassion and fiscal responsibility.
“I believe it’s important for those in our community who are unsheltered to have a safe and welcoming place to go, that is absolutely a given to us,” Neville said .
She added that, given “extremely constrained resources,” the city must “work cooperatively and creatively with our community partners” and ensure that any changes “needs to ensure that those who currently receive services continue to receive them at the same level or greater” and that “any transitions are not disruptive and are very clearly communicated not only to the clients but throughout the community.”
Under the adopted motion, the city will maintain the existing level of navigation and respite services at the L Street site through the end of the 2025–26 fiscal year, with the possibility of extending beyond that date if needed.
“What we are recommending is that the city continue to provide the existing level of services that are currently being provided at 530 L Street until approximately June 30th, 2026,” Neville said .
That recommendation assumes continued employment of two temporary city staff funded through state allocations and limited capital investment at the aging facility.
Neville acknowledged the site’s physical shortcomings, saying the city is “fully aware of the condition of that location,” but adding that substantial investment “right now wouldn’t make a lot of fiscal sense.”
The second component of the plan directs the city manager to develop a transition proposal that includes a city-operated referral and transportation system to Fourth & Hope, a shelter and service provider in Woodland.
“We are asking that the city manager work with city staff to establish a dedicated referral and transportation system by no later than July 1st, 2026,” Neville said .
She explained that the transportation option would allow “individuals who are willing and interested in participating in that program” to access services at Fourth & Hope .
At the same time, Neville acknowledged the limitations of a transportation-based model.
“We recognize that not all of the clients who currently receive services at the respite center may be interested in going to Fourth and Hope,” she said .
As a result, the transition plan will also explore maintaining some level of respite services within Davis.
Vice Mayor Gloria Partida described the proposal as a reassessment of how best to serve people experiencing homelessness, rather than a retreat from services.
“I just want to acknowledge that it’s difficult to make these recommendations because on the surface it does feel like what we’re suggesting is a removal of services,” Partida said. “But what I do believe that we are doing is that we are taking a hard accounting of effectiveness and asking what is really the best that we can provide for our unhoused population.”
Partida rejected the characterization that the Respite Center’s work has been ineffective.
“I think that we have served people very well at the respite center. I think we’ve given them a lot of services,” she said .
She added, “I think what has not been a success is that the site itself is just, it’s not great.”
She noted that respite is not measured solely by housing placements. “A lot of those outcomes are not getting people into housing … but it’s about just giving them respite and giving them a place to be and to wash their clothes and take a shower,” Partida said.
Councilmember Josh Chapman supported maintaining services through June 2026 but stressed the importance of preserving a low-barrier site within Davis.
“I do firmly and still believe that we need a location for folks to go,” Chapman said .
He expressed concern that some clients would not travel to Woodland. He said there are “a large population of the folks in our community who need a low barrier entrance and a facility where they can go,” especially those who “don’t have the ability or the desire to get on a bus and drive all the way to Fourth & Hope” or “don’t trust the system.”
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla placed the respite center within a broader housing and services framework focused on permanent supportive housing.
“To me, I think it’s actually fairly clear … the long-term vision is to have adequate amounts of permanent supportive housing across Davis,” Vaitla said.
He described respite services as an interim strategy that offers “some security, some safety, some basic services, some navigation links” until more permanent housing is developed.
Vaitla noted the importance of maintaining both respite and navigation services. “Earlier when I said we’d like to continue what we’re providing, what it meant for me was respite services plus navigation, case management navigation,” he said .
City staff provided historical context, explaining that the respite center was initially envisioned to offer basic services such as “shower, laundry, a place to rest,” but that demand quickly expanded beyond those functions.
“What our current team does is not only to provide those basic services … once you’re comfortable, let’s talk to you about creating a case plan,” a city representative told the council . The representative noted that current state funding supports navigation and operational services but that “I have yet to find a funding source that says they will fund just being opened for basic needs.”
The discussion also included evaluation of potential alternative sites, including Fifth Street, the Civic Center gym and other properties. Councilmembers indicated that Fifth Street and L Street remain the leading options for further analysis, while acknowledging financial and logistical constraints at each location.
As the meeting drew to a close, Vaitla formally moved to continue “the full range of services” at L Street through the fiscal year, establish and evaluate a transportation partnership with Fourth & Hope, develop a more detailed concept plan for the Fifth Street site and consult with Yolo County regarding potential use of 600 A St.
Neville seconded the motion, and the council approved it without dissent .
After the vote, Neville thanked residents, advocates and neighbors who participated in the lengthy process. “I so appreciate your involvement,” she said .
The council is expected to revisit the transportation data, site comparisons and cost estimates later this spring, as it weighs how to balance neighborhood concerns, service capacity and long-term housing goals.
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.
Davis’ solution to inadequate homeless services is to send homeless people to Woodland.
I assume someone must have checked, but I know Fourth & Hope is pretty impacted
DG – can you report out on this? I heard a council member talking about “empty shelter beds” in woodland. Why is arranging transportation to a full service shelter with a place to sleep being scorned RG?
Most of my experience is with the courts and the notion that there are empty shelter spaces seems at odds with the wait lists and problems that courts have finding placements.
I have heard nothing but good things about 4th & Hope and I believe this is valid as Donna said for those wanting those larger services, with options for low-bar support services still in Davis.
Fact is there is no such facility in Davis, no funding on the horizon, and years to build if adequate funding and site are found in Davis.
It’s only nine miles from Paul’s Place to 4th & Hope up Pole Line. It’s 3 miles from 4th & Hope from downtown Woodland! They already use a van to go those three miles in Woodland, I don’t see what the big deal is to serve 4th & Hope with a van to Davis that is 9 miles instead of 3 miles. Certainly much faster, cheaper and more practical solution than waiting for funding, site & construction of similar in Davis — that would take place in a minimum of several years, and quite possibly never :-|
“develop a more detailed concept plan for the Fifth Street site.”
This is a very disappointing outcome, and frankly disrespectful of the neighborhood that has dealt with this issue for six years.
. . . or the businesses in the neighborhood :-|
Disrespectful is right. From Bapu and Josh especially, but even Gloria who wants elsewhere when talking about why it needed to be moved felt the need to stop herself and state unequivocally, ” . . . not because it’s bad for the neighbors!!!”. Which was kind of an admission that it is indeed bad for the neighbors and she knows it :-(
Feel free to correct me GP if I got that wrong.
What I don’t get is why — to so many on the Council –services for a small number of homeless, the effectiveness of which still hasn’t been questioned or quantified, is more important than the safety of established nearby residents. Several Davis Manor / Old East neighbors said they don’t feel safe going out at night, or letting their kids go out alone. I talked to a couple of adjacent residents who said there is often screaming in the middle of the night. One woman who lives a couple of blocks from the Respite Center testified how she came home to find a homeless man in her house, sitting on the toilet “making a B.M.”.
Early in the general comments a young person slammed the neighbors for having issue with any effects from the Respite Center, shaming the neighborhoods by saying we had no right to talk if we were sleeping with a roof over our heads on this rainy night. Yet for the City, ‘social justice’ is just a phrase to throw out when it comes to siting such a facility in a residential neighborhood. Some on the Council have said this site is bad for a Respite Center, yet Josh and Bapu continue to favor the L Street site. There is less than no money, so L Street is very likely to remain as the site they start ‘investing in’ as the ‘permanent site’ by default.
If the city really cared about ‘social justice’ as anything but a buzzword, they’d consider the old 2nd street site again, they’d consider Stonegate Lake, North Davis Farms, Alhambra Lake, Willowbank. But they won’t. Because those people can afford expensive lawyers and the City knows it, and the City already saw the (far away) neighbors of the (apparently now discarded for no apparent reason) 2nd Street site. And that was just because those neighbors said the homeless people would threaten their kids. Apparently the city agreed the homeless would be a threat to those peoples’ kids, those people with houses worth $100-$200k or more greater than the value of people’s houses in Davis Manor. The Davis Manor kids are also apparently worth less to the City in proportion to the lesser value of their houses. When it comes to ACTUAL social justice, Davis City Council lives in HYPOCRISY HOTEL.
So what the AF ??? Why is some young a-hole shaming housed residents, a non-quantified benefit to homeless-persons, and maybe homeless advocate lawyers in the background more of a threat to the city council than establish neighbor’s repeated testimony of the effects that they say they have heard and listened to?
You say you have heard us – then why do you continue to f*ck us?
We need to dig into this assertion that H street is a nonstarter because cultures are different. Didn’t the tax payers give a million dollars to Paul’s place? Surely that bought some good will to allow the respite center to be moved to a CITY owned duplex that is next door and the cheapest option listed in the enterprise article.
“We need to dig into this assertion that H street is a nonstarter because cultures are different.”
I doubt that the problem is really one of culture, but rather one of who controls how the money is spent. From the community’s perspective I believe we should be supporting projects that work, not propping up those that do not. The Respite Center, from my personal perspective both as a neighbor and initial supporter, has been an abject failure. Paul’s place, on the other hand from every analysis I have seen, is a continuing success story. This should not be a difficult decision for the CC.
City Council, Davis Residents:
When Mark West & Alan Miller actually agree on something, you might just want to listen.
“Davis’ solution to inadequate homeless services is to send homeless people to Woodland.”
(As they should. They have absolutely no need to be in Davis.)
Davis City Council Votes to Maintain Respite Services Through June 2026, Explore New Location and Regional Partnership”
(But David – didn’t you just state a couple of days ago that a parternship with an organization in Woodland wasn’t feasible, when I brought it up?)
No, I said it wasn’t simple. What they are proposing is not simple and may not work at all.
Honestly, a city shouldn’t even be assuming responsibility for something like this in the first place. Woodland is the COUNTY seat.
Why does every single podunk town (including Davis) have to have their “own” homeless program? Sounds pretty inefficient, at best. Does Dixon have a homeless program, for example? (Other than perhaps shipping/encouraging their homeless to hang around Davis?)
In any case, I guess the council has more faith than you do regarding what they’re proposing.
I was in Dixon one evening not long ago and never saw a homeless person. Same with Winters. I’m not saying there aren’t any, I know there are. But I’m talking about the Davis culture that changed about 20 years ago to allowing the disrespectful homeless to hang out downtown and along bike paths, drainage canals, city parks and the railroad.
By ‘disrespectful homeless’ I’m not talking about all homeless persons — I’m talking about the visible sect that doesn’t respect its neighbors when it leaves piles of trash & litter, has dogs off leash, gets intoxicated in public, aggressively panhandles, poops on public and private property and doesn’t dig a hole to bury it in — you get the idea. We are told they are ‘our neighbors’ by the homeless advocates and the homeless advocate lawyers. The respectful homeless I am Ok with giving that title to; those that are disrespectful to their neighborhs and the public — not so much. In fact, not at all.
Why does the City put up with the disrespectful homeless that ruin it for everyone — including very often, and most often, decent homeless people who treat the community with respect, and who I have no issue with. Where has this bizarre idea come from that because someone is homeless, the city of Davis will hold them to no standards of civility, to no ask that they treat the City of Davis as a temple that they share responsibility for, rather than as a dump?