It was just a week ago that the Vanguard asked the critical question: why would STEAC insist on a five-year deal at the Fourth and D intersection when the city was offering them – and obviously preferred – a location down the street on the block between L St and Pole Line where they offered the charity a twenty-year lease free of charge?
What became clear, last week, is that the council could not or would not stand up to STEAC and deny them their preferred spot, but a majority on council last week made it very clear that the city had plans for that parcel of land.
Behind the scenes we were told even last week that the city had a notion that it might be moving the fire station, but that STEAC’s board and leadership kind of dismissed that as improbable. After all, they reasoned, we have been talking about a fourth fire station for years.
This time, however, it is different and the council clearly hammered this point home on Tuesday night when not only did they pass the staffing changes by a 3-2 vote, but contained within that vote was the friendly amendment by Rochelle Swanson that would move the fire station to the northeast.
The desire to move the fire station was further bolstered by the fact that both Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Lucas Frerichs pledged their support for the fire station move, even within their “no” vote on the staffing changes.
If STEAC is not paying attention here, it is to their detriment. The city council considers this block between D and E Street, that is occupied both by the plot of land where the STEAC module unit will go as well as by the fire station, prime city land that could be used to put in some of their economic redevelopment visions.
One councilmember went so far as to suggest to the Vanguard that we might see planning on this site begin immediately.
The message here is clear. The movement of the fire station under boundary drop is no longer speculative. If Station 34, located on the UC Davis campus, now has the ability to be first responder into the city of Davis, they can get to the fire station located at Fifth and E Street right on the edge of their four-minute travel time.
That being the case, the central Davis Fire Station is not located in the optimal area. Instead, it needs to be shifted to the north and the east slightly. By locating the fire station on Covell somewhere between F St and Pole Line, the fire station would still be able to serve the core of town, and also places like Wildhorse would fall into the city’s mandated four-minute travel time.
The movement of the fire station, therefore, is largely a no-brainer. The only question is where it goes and how the city will find a way to pay for it. That will be one of the jobs that the subcommittee, appointed to work with the Cannery project, will address.
On Tuesday night, the council named Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Lucas Frerichs to be the subcommittee on Cannery Park, and clearly one of the items they will be pushing is to see if ConAgra will accommodate a request to put a fire station in that development.
Given these developments, STEAC should be even more concerned with the $200,000 cost of the modular building on a site that looks increasingly like it will only accommodate their needs for another five years.
There are other critical concerns, as well. The political concerns of the organization should be considered. The decision to stick to their 5th and D Street guns pushed the council into an awkward position, having to choose between the demands of a popular non-profit organization that provides vital services to many needy families in the community, and the well-founded concerns of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association.
Privately, citizens and councilmembers alike bristled at some of the heavy-handed tactics employed in securing the approval of the five-year plan.
Mayor Joe Krovoza argued that the staff recommendation was reasonable, but at the same time said, “The city has a very valuable well-positioned asset in its downtown that we’re not comfortable locking up for a long-term twenty-year period of time, but we don’t have any immediate plans for it.”
He argued that they could go for a twenty-year period at a neighboring site (actually down 5th street).
But it was Dan Wolk who pushed the project home. He was the strongest supporter of STEAC, arguing, “The work that STEAC does providing assistance to the neediest in our community, providing those services in the heart of our community, giving the dispossessed a helping hand and making, in the words of John F. Kennedy, ‘God’s work here on earth,’ truly their own, goes to who I am as a policy-maker.”
At the time we remarked that this move was “curious, at best.”
Now it looks just plain irresponsible. Last week, we noted that it was clear there is a majority on council who have a clear vision for the site, as well as the site of the fire station. There was talk behind the scenes that a Greek Theater might be well-situated at this location if the council can find a new location for the fire station that better serves North Davis.
This week that speculation is now concrete. The fire station is moving – the only question is how quickly. That land is valuable to council and will go to other uses.
And the neighborhood had legitimate concerns about the design guidelines which were, as Steve Tracy put it, simply ignored by city staff.
Last week we wrote that STEAC clearly won this battle. The council was not going to oppose this well-regarded community organization, but more than one person told the Vanguard that the organization burned a lot of currency and maybe their good name by ramming this through.
But now we know, just like Davis Diamonds won a temporary battle to move into the auto zone, the longer range picture is far less clear.
Bottom line, STEAC needs to reevaluate their decision and do what is really in the best interest of everyone involved – move their facility down the street and get the twenty year rent-free guarantee that many non-profits would dream of.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The School district has been talking for decades about developing the land that its district offices sits on. The City has taken years to change 5th street. Moving a fire station and developing that land will take a long time.
I agree – they have five years. Will they get another five years? That’s more debatable. So if you have finite resources, do you spend your $200,000 on a five year guarantee or a 20 year one?
I will also say, it’s one thing to talk, the council put this into their motion on Tuesday, they plan to approach Cannery on the issue, etc
Councilman Wolk appeared not to have a clue about the fire station issues. Or, he was being disingenuous when he nastily retorted to Councilman Lee’s expression of concern that STEAC realize why the city offered only a five-year lease. Maybe he was missing something, he noted, and why was Lee “assuming facts not in evidence?” Why would he then turn to the staff and demand to who whether there were any current city plans for for developing the property?
It was an sureal exchange since it soon became obvious that all of the council members (except Wolk?) knew of the fire station move likelihood. And, when he read his “God’s work” statement, it became obvious that he was more interested in super-pandering (more than his semi-pandering colleagues) and in cutting off discussion.
Whether it takes a long time–how long is “a long time” anyway?–it doesn’t take much foresight to see that the City will find itself in the awkward position of “evicting” the beloved STEAC and its 80-foot building long before the 20-year corporation yard offering (which likely would be renewed itself).
As David suggests, STEAC leadership needs to look after its supporters, clients and landlord by building on the free, long term site instead of the five-year location.
Much has transpired in a week and five years now seems about right. Don’t forget there is a public safety component to expediting the construction of a firehouse along Covell. Maybe STEAC will reconsider but there are other concerns in their calculus not just the ones favored by the neighbors who have issues with the shed.
I agree Mr. Toad.
steac made a huge mistake. amazingly they have a do-over and can fix things. i suggest they do or i for one will not be donating.
David, have you been able to get comments from Cass?
I’ll donate twice as much to STEAC this year.
It’s been on my list of things to do, but between our public event on Sunday and the fire staffing issue, I have not had a chance to follow up.
rk- yeah, let’s support bad policy decisions… i suspect you have ulterior motives here.
Oh for heavens sake…like what, DP? Are you really going to accuse me of profiting in some way over this project? I’m just tired of the tit for tat that is infused in all aspects of political life in Davis.
It is a temporary building. It can be moved. It is not permanent, so does not prevent the City from carrying forward with its plans.
DP, you remind me who refuse to donate canned goods to STEAC because it is a Cub Scout that is helping to collect the cans…
When I commented during the initial public hearing on this matter before the CC I asked the CC to focus their decision on one key end: “What would a change in STEAC’s location mean for the people who receive its services?” The current location is served by both Unitrans and Yolobuses 42A and 42B. A move down 5th Street would require a transfer from the 42A or B to a Unitrans bus (P or Q which run along 5th Street).
Now, it is important to note that some (a majority perhaps) of STEAC clients have cars or can arrive by bike so either location could work for them. However, SOME of those who use the bus may have additional challenges getting to the proposed alternative location but it is not unsolvable problem (though it may be less convenient). STEAC clients must be referred and have appointments to obtain services at this site if I am not mistaken (at least the ones with whom I work do).
At the meeting at which the decision was made the needs of and potential hardships to clients of changing locations was barely touched upon. One Board member, if I am not mistaken, made reference to clients being hurt if STEAC had to move but he did not clarify how that might be. I am, therefore, left feeling like the issue of impact on clients has simply not been addressed and I feel that this issue should have been THE key factor in the CC arriving at a decision.
Because of this (and I regret it a great deal) I am unable to comment on the wisdom of the STEAC Board’s actions. For those who will abandon STEAC because of what they perceive to be inappropriate actions by the Board I can only say that your decision will only hurt STEAC clients. If you feel that the Board has failed then use your voice to request a review of the Board’s decision and, if need be, seek to become a Board member. All non-profits can use committed and interested board members. But please think long and hard before cutting off support to STEAC.
rk: my reference is to your repeatedly expressed desire to [s]harm[/s] a certain neighbor of the property.
The only neighbor is Mike Harrington, who owns the commercial property next door? How does the STEAC building harm him? Is he saying that it will?
Have I never expressed a desire to harm Mike Harrington. This is a false accusation.
I support STEAC. I feel that is provides a critical service in our community that has huge impact on the lives of the people it serves. As someone who has experienced extreme and sudden poverty, I understand how valuable instant and appropriate help can be.
Boy, that came out all strange… Let me try again.
The only neighbor, other than the City, is Mike Harrington, who owns the commercial property next door. How does the STEAC building harm him? Is he saying that it will?
I have never expressed a desire to harm Mike Harrington.
I support STEAC. I feel that it provides a critical service in our community that has huge impact on the lives of the people it serves. As someone who has experienced extreme and sudden poverty, I understand how valuable instant and appropriate help can be.
[quote] The current location is served by both Unitrans and Yolobuses 42A and 42B. A move down 5th Street would require a transfer from the 42A or B to a Unitrans bus (P or Q which run along 5th Street). [/quote]Actually, neither P or Q run past the city Corp Yard (A -line). Also, City corp yard, Community gardens, etc, has been a “riper fruit” for redevelopment proposals over the last 10 or so years, in the previous calculus.
The corp Yard site has not been “vetted” with adjacent properties…. not a “slam dunk” for STEAC to locate there… add another two years for approval, based on STEAC’s dealing with the City. Ken Hiatt’s idea (?) to get OND off the City’s back? He’s gone now.
STEAC and the CC made the right call, at least for now. The future was not as secure as some have opined.
BTW, there are other deficiencies @ the Corp Yard site… lack of sanitary sewer connection, visibility, access, etc.
I can’t imagine why anyone is thinking of using the city corp yard site for anything STEAC-related. There are very few amenities nearby. It’s pretty isolated and not very friendly to foot traffic.
hpierce – I must have looked at the Unitrans bus map wrong or don’t know where the Corp yard is. I thought it was west of Poleline on 5th. Both the P and Q run on 5th to/from Poleline and then to/from South Davis (so I am confused). BTW, my comment was not to suggest that the site is a good one (actually, I don’t really know anything about it). I merely wanted SOMEONE, anyone, to talk about the clients and whether this site would meet the needs of clients. If what you and Don are saying is correct (and I have no reason to doubt either of you, then it would appear that the STEAC board made a reasonable decision. I wish these issues had been raised.
I didn’t talk to Cass, yet, but I did talk to someone close to the situation. The board has not talked about this year, but the council’s decision to move the fire station while talked about previously, was not really believed to be imminent. It’s one of those things that they have been talking about for years without result.
Robb… you are correct, and I erred. YoloBus does not serve anywhere near the Corp Yard site. Unitrans does indeed serve that stretch with P/Q, and A lines. The frequency of the Unitrans service varies with the acedemic year calendar.