Committee pauses navigation‑center mandate to refine siting, cost and flexibility provisions

Supervisor Matt Haney presented substitute legislation directing the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) to open navigation centers in supervisorial districts that lack them, set operational standards (including allowing centers to serve up to 130 residents and permitting residents to remain for at least 90 days while participating in services), require good‑neighbor policies, and direct HSH to develop fair‑share siting criteria and community engagement processes.

Haney framed the ordinance as a citywide response to a growing shelter crisis, citing more than 8,000 people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco, a 65% unsheltered rate, and thousands on shelter wait lists. He said navigation centers — lower‑barrier shelters that allow pets, partners and possessions and provide on‑site services — have helped move many people into stable exits and that the Board needs to ensure geographic equity so all neighborhoods step up.

Severn Campbell, Budget and Legislative Analyst, told the committee the fiscal impact varies widely by site type and that the FY 2019‑20 budget provided for two new navigation centers (one at 888 Post). Campbell estimated average annual operating costs for existing centers at roughly $4,300,000 and said capital costs depend on location and facility type. She emphasized that exact costs require further review.

Abigail Stewart Khan, Director of Strategy and External Affairs at HSH, said the department applauds the urgency but had two principal concerns: the ordinance’s narrow focus on navigation centers could divert time, political capital and resources from other components of the homelessness response (such as housing exits and family shelters), and the measure as written might slow and make projects more expensive. HSH cited recent expansion work (692 navigation‑center beds opened since July 2018 and about 499 units in the pipeline) and warned that devoting an estimated $28 million to two centers — and $230 million for all eight proposed districts — could reduce the funds available for housing exits.

Supervisors and HSH discussed tradeoffs, including how many housing exits can be produced in the next 30 months and the proportion of shelter beds to exits. Haney said he was open to amendments to preserve flexibility and ensure facilities meet neighborhood needs. Supervisor Aaron Peskin and others observed that district lines may not perfectly capture neighborhood needs but said fair‑share criteria are important.

Public testimony included the Youth Commission (which opposed the substitute legislation unless the mandate for a Transitional‑Age Youth navigation center is reinstated), the Richmond District Democratic Club and multiple community organizations and formerly homeless residents who urged citywide expansion of navigation centers and urgent action to prevent deaths on the streets.

After discussion, Chair Marr said he had been working with the city attorney on amendments to broaden compliance options (including allowing alternative homeless facilities where navigation centers are infeasible) and moved to continue the item to the call of the chair so stakeholders and supervisors could review and refine the ordinance. The motion to continue was granted.

Next steps: Item 2 was continued to the call of the chair to allow additional stakeholder engagement and amendment drafting; no final committee vote on the ordinance occurred.