San Bernardino’s $23.8 Million Homeless Navigation Center Sparks Debate Over Modular Housing and Preliminary Service Rejections

As San Bernardino grapples with how to deploy $23.8 million in funding for its new Homeless Navigation Center, tensions are mounting over design choices, service policies, and ongoing challenges in securing the cooperation of the unhoused. During a special council meeting held on October 24 at the Feldheym Library, Acting City Manager Rochelle Clayton revealed that despite a court injunction lifted on October 2 permitting the city to clear encampments, unhoused individuals at Perris Hill Park are refusing services, likely due to shelter rules.

According to Clayton, outreach efforts conducted by Hope the Mission on October 22 encountered unanimous rejection, with unhoused individuals citing an unwillingness to follow the center’s restrictions. “The response was plain,” Clayton reported. “They do not want any restrictions or rules.” With this resistance in mind, Clayton expressed concerns over the city’s plan to open a 200-bed facility, advocating instead for a phased launch with 50 or 100 beds to assess demand. “We don’t want to staff a facility for hundreds of beds that may go unused,” she added, highlighting an already uncertain level of occupancy at the forthcoming center to be located at the former School of Hope site at 796 6th St., San Bernardino.

Modular Housing Models Under Fire for Cost and Practicality 

The city’s shift from a non-congregate to a congregate modular housing model has drawn substantial criticism, particularly from Councilman Ted Sanchez, who argued that the new plan disregards council-approved decisions made over two years ago. Initially, the center was envisioned as a non-congregate facility where each individual would have a private unit complete with a bathroom, fostering privacy and independence. The newer congregate model—adopted by city staff—offers private sleeping areas but shared communal restrooms, aimed at reducing operational and maintenance costs.

Consultant Lila Laviano, principal at Erna Enterprises, was brought on to reevaluate the project’s finances and questioned the feasibility of the more costly non-congregate option. “The price per square foot was outrageous,” Laviano explained. “Operating costs skyrocketed when we looked at the responsibility of cleaning over 200 individual restrooms. By moving to a congregate model, we reduce costs and maintain better interaction with staff to help support sobriety and documentation needs.” The updated model will still reserve at least two non-congregate units for families, detoxing individuals, or those with specific health conditions to satisfy funder requirements.

Despite the fiscal justification, Councilman Sanchez voiced frustration at what he perceived as a disregard for council-approved guidelines. “The RFP went out for a build that the council did not approve,” Sanchez argued, noting that a formal vote had solidified support for a non-congregate modular structure. “Did those plans suddenly disappear?” Sanchez demanded a detailed breakdown of the project’s funds—including $12.4 million from the ARPA construction allocation—asserting that city staff’s shift to congregate housing represents an unapproved deviation from the council’s vision.

Mayor Pro Tem Fred Shorett supported Sanchez’s criticisms, questioning if the restrictive policies of the Navigation Center might deter the unhoused from accepting services. “We talk about dignity and letting them live their life, but we’re imposing heavy restrictions,” Shorett said. 

“I don’t have any restrictions in my house. But, I get it, there has to be some sort of conditions and security. I’m not sure that sank in [for me] until tonight, that we’re out here finding services and help for these people and they’re not accepting it.”

Funding Urgency and Project Complexity 

With $23.8 million already allocated to the project—derived from ARPA, HOME-ARP, CDBG, and additional grants—the city faces pressure to spend the funds before year’s end. SBPD Commissioner Junior Carillo warned that any delays could put this essential funding at risk. “We have around $30 million to spend by December, and we need to move forward,” Carillo said, emphasizing that the city’s funding deadline leaves little time for further debate.

The anticipated operating cost for each resident is $3,333 per month, translating to over $8 million annually to support 200 beds, raising questions about long-term financial feasibility and the reason why 50-100 beds was proposed by Clayton during discussion.

However, the pressure to meet fiscal deadlines is exacerbated by logistical concerns, particularly regarding modular housing costs. The initial proposal received only one bid for each housing type: $24.4 million for traditional construction and $28.9 million for modular, both exceeding current funding limits. As a result, the city turned to Laviano’s consultancy, resulting in the recommendation for a congregate hybrid model as the most viable option within budget constraints.

Councilman Ben Reynoso voiced his support for a phased approach to ensure that the project is sustainable in the long term, advocating for transparency around costs and resources. “I want to know how many beds we can operate sustainably without relying solely on partnerships. This needs to be a case study on balancing compassion with practicality,” Reynoso said, pressing for a comprehensive report on the expenses, partnerships, and funding needs associated with the project.

Calvin Calls for Targeted Solutions

Councilmember Kim Calvin, who has served the unhoused population professionally for 30+ years in Florida and California, emphasized that the Navigation Center’s single phased approach fails to address the diverse needs within the unhoused community. “It sounds like we’re trying to place every unsheltered person in one category, and the truth is there are multiple categories,” Calvin said, arguing that each group—whether families, individuals struggling with addiction, or the working homeless—requires different levels of support and access to resources. Calvin pointed to stories shared by city partners, who have seen working parents living in vehicles, with their children brushing their teeth in the morning before school outside of the car door. “The working unhoused have different needs than those struggling with addiction or mental health,” she added. “We need a plan for each of these groups, not a one-size-fits-all solution.”

The Navigation Center’s phased approach has been adjusted to include “safe stay communities,” also known as sanctioned encampments, which offer temporary shelters with fewer restrictions. The idea is to provide immediate relief without imposing the rigid requirements of the Navigation Center, allowing those who are hesitant about structured environments to access essential resources. But the sanctioned encampment is still not an answer to Calvin’s targeted solution recommendation. 

Public Frustration Mounts as Residents Demand Accountability

In addition to council members, residents voiced their dissatisfaction with the center’s progress and apparent lack of accountability. Pastor Reginald Young, a San Bernardino homeowner and accountant, highlighted delays and gaps in city planning, asking pointedly, “What measures do we have in place to ensure the funds are used successfully?” Young’s concerns echo a broader sentiment in the community, especially as additional allocations—including $4.6 million for the Waterman Corridor and $11 million for the Highland Corridor—have yet to result in visible improvements.

Councilman Sanchez further criticized the council presentation, calling it overly complex and scattered, arguing that city staff should have broken down the project into clear, actionable parts. “This should have been divided into three pieces,” Sanchez said, stating that essential questions—such as the vision for the Navigation Center, the operation plan, and the funding allocation—were lost in the current proposal’s ambiguity.

Despite extensive debate, the council voted to move forward with the modular congregate hybrid approach, formalizing a motion for a comprehensive breakdown of all project funding and operational resources to be reviewed at a to be announced workshop/special meeting. Councilman Reynoso, who seconded the motion, acknowledged Acting City Manager Clayton’s initiative in exploring alternative solutions but emphasized the need for council oversight moving forward. “I appreciate what you did, but Councilman Sanchez is right in that this should have been brought to council first. But, I appreciate you and the work you are doing.”

The Path Forward

As the city navigates an escalating homeless crisis, the Navigation Center remains a polarizing project, emblematic of the broader challenges in managing limited resources while addressing the diverse and pressing needs of unhoused residents. With the clock ticking on the December funding deadline, city leaders must balance operational sustainability, community support, and dignified service provision to make the Navigation Center a viable solution for San Bernardino’s homeless population.