Having survived an appeal and dodged a requested restraining order and stay, construction on the hotly contested plans for a temporary Navigation Center to pop-up on the Port’s parking lot parcel known as Seawall Lot 330, adjacent to the Watermark and across from Piers 30-32, commenced in July and is on track to be completed this December.

While the Embarcadero Navigation Center will open with 130 beds and a host of community services, it is slated to ramp up to a total of 200 beds by mid-2020 and operate for a base period of two years with a conditional 2-year option to renew and regular reporting requirements.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by BTinSF

    That’ll teach these condo owners to oppose (permanent) development in their ‘hood.

  2. Posted by EXSFLandlord

    IMO…..Want a taste of how this NC will effect the surrounding neighborhood and waterfront, go visit the NC at the corner of 5th and Bryant.

    Take time and spend a few hours observing the activities of the folks who are hanging around the front door of that NC. Watch the NC residents wander in and out of the entrance…watch them walk over to the freeway ramp to panhandle motorist stuck in traffic. See them lounging on the front steps hustling passing folks on the sidewalk.

    I’m told this NC at 5th and Bryant is an anomaly, that the ones located in the Mission are less prone to the kind of activity seen at 5th and Bryant. My instincts tell me otherwise…..that the new NC at SWL330 is going to be similar to 5th and Bryant NC due to it’s location to the Bay Bridge on ramp along Bryant. And the number of Giant’s fans walking along the Embarcadero to Oracle park.

    I’m going to sit back and wait to read the next headline of the next horrific attack on a unsuspecting resident or tourist walking in the neighborhood. How they were bludgeon and robbed by some deranged homeless addict who the city ( read Mayor London Breed) decided it was better to import them into the NC for ” wrap around” social services.

    Hope I’m wrong…but it’s apparent to me that the Lunatics at City Hall are in charge of the Asylum….add that the BOS support for Prop 47 and now their new Animal Farm resolution changing the definition of Felons by using New speak to define a Felon as…… “justice-involved person” or “returning resident.” Drug abusers will now be termed “a person with a history of substance use,” instead of an addict. To quote the SF Chronicle…..”The paper insisted that a criminal who breaks into a car could now be called “a person who has come in contact with a returning resident who was involved with the justice system and who is currently under supervision with a history of substance use.””

    • Posted by aerl

      5th and Bryant isn’t a navigation center, it’s a homeless shelter. Homeless shelters are first-come-first-served, navigation centers aren’t. To gain entrance to a navigation center, the person needs to have a recommendation from a social worker as being someone who has a high likelihood of making the successful transition to regular housing and gainful employment. People who have untreated mental illness or are in the throws of drug addiction don’t qualify.

      • Posted by egs

        That is incorrect. There is indeed a Navigation Center at 5th and Bryant. If you don’t believe me just go to the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing website. I have never spent time there as it sounds like EXSFLandlord has, but I drive by very frequently. I can tell you the things that she/he describes do happen and despite what DHSH says, there are constantly people hanging out in front.

        Now to your point, there is also a private shelter on a different corner of 5th and Bryant so it is possible that has a negative impact on the 5th and Bryant Navigation Center. But the conditions that EXSFLandlord describes for Embarcadero (close proximity to cars backed up trying to get on the freeway and thousands of tourists/Giants fans walking along the Embarcadero) will also be a negative for this Navigation Center. It was simply a poor choice of places for a navigation center.

    • Posted by jimbo

      5th and Bryant was like that before the Navigation center too.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      There’s very little more indicative of irredeemable character flaws than hating the poor and destitute… for being poor and destitute.

    • Posted by Hunter

      5th and Bryant has a large homeless shelter (across from Nav Center) and was already a very troubled intersection with large encampments under the freeway. Nothing you’re describing is due to building a shelter with better services, and it’s true that those in the mission haven’t added crime or blight to their surroundings. The Embarcadero location will likely get many folks off the streets from around the Ferry Building and has even stricter rules for security and outside behavior, so I expect you will be proven wrong,

  3. Posted by Karl

    Are there any new numbers on the effectiveness of these centers putting (and keeping) street ppl into decent living situations? Last time a year ago or so the numbers for the navigation center on Mission / 14th St. suggested it was essentially just part of street scene merry go-round where folks can go chill for a while before returning to their old ways.

    • Posted by Wallace

      About 5% are put into housing. Stats are on the HSH website.

    • Posted by jimbo

      these centers need mandatory drug and mental illness treatment. we have to force involuntary treatment or this is just a revolving door. im glad that this is being placed here as there is a substantial problem already on the embaradero, so i doubt it will make worse. hopefully it becomes a permanent shelter and treatment center, and they can increase beyond 200 beds.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      What housing?!?
      We can’t even build temporary shelters…

  4. Posted by Wallace

    There is a navigation center at that intersection too. I’m not sure where you got your information about the centers, but you got it backwards. Navigation Centers allow active drug users and the mentally ill. They are low barrier shelters that take in those who have been homeless the longest and those who are seen as resistant to services.

  5. Posted by sfdragonboy

    Only our very own pathetic [Board of Supervisors] would think that prime land in a tourist dependent economy should go to the mentally ill or substance abusers. Why? These people are fortunate to get any shelter or help and that could be done for them anywhere quite frankly. The money from taxes or builders fees from developments there could help a lot more people and again do we need to remind everyone that a lot of tourists frequent this area? Don’t come close to even touching the golden goose I say.

    • Posted by jimbo

      new article in SFgate today states that >4000 of the homeless are mentally ill or addicted. this is despite all the previous claims to the contrary, and is still probably an underestimate. these folks need at least a 1 yr mandatory involuntary treatment (and some longer). i wish it was possible to build 4 large treatment centers in a cheaper place in the state, and cycle them back into SF as housing is found for them. If they cant stay sober after that, and continue to be a menace, we have to consider jail or longer institutionalization. this is a public health crisis, and these folks are a danger to themselves and others. if they dont get treatment, this is not going to change

      • Posted by Anonymous

        This is a classic War on Drugs strategy that has consistently failed for literally decades.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Indeed, combined with the new war on housing and poor people.

          The entire BA is now a factory of homelessness. Within a few weeks of living on the street people lose their mental health and fall into substance abuse. This is well documented for decades and anyone is welcome to try for themselves if you don’t believe.

          Given our extreme inequality and no mitigating measures, we will need many more ‘complaint venues’ for all these people that don’t care about fixing problems in the city and society they live in.

          It’s almist as if buying in to this insane real estate/holding a lucrative job entitles to being protected and separated from those less fortunate … but but but your real estate agents and HR didn’t tell you that SF has a humanitarian crisis? Enough to look up statements by the U.N. and world press— we’re famous!

        • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

          Okay, jimbo didn’t include a link to the article he referred to, so here it is: SF counts 4,000 homeless, addicted and mentally ill, but timeline for help still unclear. After reading it, I disagree that mandatory involuntary treatment is “a classic War on Drugs strategy”, because the War on Drugs strategy from the 70’s onward was just putting people in jail for drug use. This approach is different because treatment is being provided.

          Even if you disagree with me and think that nothing that even smacks of the War on Drugs should be tried, how do you get homeless drug addicts clean and sober if they don’t submit to treatment? Clearly you cannot “just provide housing”, because that just means addicts have a stable, private location where the drug dealers can find them and they can go on using. Sobriety has to come first.

          You have to make housing provision contingent upon being clean and sober, otherwise you’re using taxpayer funds to enable their addiction. And in order to get addicts clean and sober, treatment can’t be only voluntary.

          • Posted by jimbo

            most overdoses are in SROs. sobriety and treatment for mental illness needs to come first for sure. agree that jail for addicts was more common war on drugs strategy and the former mental instittuions did not provide adequate treatment. im suggesting good treatment by doctors/nurses who want loans forgiven (another service), and it needs to be at least 1 year. most war on drugs strategies failed but it doesnt mean the opposite (complete enablement) is the solution. we need to be pragmatic. i realize pragmatism is a dirty word to the far left and far right, but this problem has to be fixed

        • Posted by Anonymous

          It is a War on Drugs strategy. They used to force people into mental institutions and treatment facilities a lot more often until Reagan close a huge number of them. The way they were operated was not particularly effective and closing them did not improve anything. Come up with a system that isn’t draconian and punitive and that actually works and let us know. Until then, rehashing the same things that didn’t work before isn’t a very convincing course of action.

        • Posted by jimbo

          mandatory treatment is bad as opposed to total enablement? no competent healthcare provider would agree with you

          • Posted by Anonymous

            Your version of mandatory treatment is effectively incarceration, which is pretty ethically questionable. Unless you are literally going to indefinitely detain someone, you can’t actually force them to get treatment. You can have a court mandate it, but it that comes up front with detention, then you’re effectively putting people in prison for addiction.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      That parking lot is not a tourist destination, nor in Pier 30/32 across the street. The economy of SF is also not dependent on tourism. Why make up something that is so instantly and verifiably false?

      And multiple developments have been proposed for these waterfront parking lots and have been strongly resisted by area residents under the guise of nonsense like “no wall on the waterfront”. So you and other like-minded people say ‘don’t develop these lots’ but also ‘don’t use them for anything other than development’. You can’t have it both ways.

      • Posted by Hunter

        thank you – agreed! Too much fact-free nonsense from the South Beach NIMBY neighbors

      • Posted by ExSFLandlord

        This statement is factually incorrect. “And multiple developments have been proposed for these waterfront parking lots and have been strongly resisted by area residents…………”

        Prior the the Golden State Warriors proposal to build and new arena on Piers 30-32 there was a proposal to build a Cruise ship terminal with retail and office components and several residential towers on SWL330.

        The neighbors worked with the developer and in the end supported the development. So your statement, “And multiple developments have been proposed for these waterfront parking lots and have been strongly resisted by area residents…………” is patently false.

        There were several factors involved in the demise of the project’s on Pier’s 30-32 and SWL330……NIMBY’s not being one.

        BTW, I stand by my comments above ……only time will tell if my predictions pan out…..pun intended.

        • Posted by Anonymous

          This is an outright lie. It is a fact that multiple waterfront developments on port land along Embarcadero have been proposed and ultimately opposed either specifically or more generally by area residents. No amount of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty changes that.

          • Posted by Notcom

            “The economy of SF is also not dependent on tourism. Why make up something that is so instantly and verifiably false?”

            One may of course argue semantics over the meaning of “dependent” – 82,538 people would likely disagree with you – but accusing people of making sweeping generalizations is a poor pairing with doing so – “closing them did not improve anything” – yourself.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      Last I heard, that is in fact why the word temporary precedes “Navigation Center”, because The City will only have a two-year lease on the lot, which the port will continue to own and market to developers.

      • Posted by Anonymous

        It’s a 2 year lease but is easily and indefinitely renewable. So unless the city and neighbors let someone come in and develop the land, I would bet it’s going to continue being a nav center beyond the current 2 year period.

        • Posted by SocketSite

          As outlined above, it’s a 2-year lease with a single, and conditional, 2-year option to renew (while the Port solicits and negotiates proposals for the parcel and Piers).

          • Posted by Jackson

            Which could very well be the City’s game plan all along.
            Since residents fought any development on Sea Wall lot 330, plop a Navigation Center there right now and in two years time neighborhood groups will be begging for any development proposal, so long as it means removal of the homeless center.

          • Posted by jimbo

            lets hope that in 2 years they expand the size of the NC, and make it into a permanent shelter with good services and treatment

  6. Posted by jimbo

    just noticed something on the drawing. will the residents of Watermark have a poolside view of the inside of the NC?

  7. Posted by Not You

    Anyone want guess how long until the restaurant on the corner of The Embarcadero & Brannan goes out of business because of this NC? What, you don’t want to eat pizza being yelled at by crackheads? You must be a selfish billionaire or something because everyone should want to spend their evening like that. 😐

    • Posted by jimbo

      if that were true, every restaurant in the Mission would’ve closed by now

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *