A group of San Franciscans deeply opposed to a proposed 200-bed Navigation Center on the Embarcadero have made good on their promise to appeal the plan.

The group from South Beach and Rincon Hill, called Safe Embarcadero for All, wants to overturn last month’s unanimous decision by the Port Commission to lease a parcel of land to the city to house a homeless shelter. The group appealed to the Board of Supervisors to overrule the port’s decision, arguing the city skipped important steps in a rush to push the project through.

The legal wranglings will delay the opening of the shelter by at least two months, city officials said. Mayor London Breed hoped to have the shelter operational by summer. If opponents lose their appeal, they said they would file a lawsuit.

Opponents argue that people served by the Navigation Center — a shelter with intensive services on-site — would attract crime and drug use to the neighborhood.

In a letter to board President Norman Yee on Thursday, the group’s attorney alleges that the city failed to get necessary approvals from the State Lands Commission and to convene a required public hearing with the port’s designers. The letter also alleges that the city disregarded the port’s general design guidelines for the waterfront.

“The city has failed to — and may not ever — meet any of the state’s and its own regulations,” said Peter Prows, the group’s attorney with the law firm Briscoe Ivester & Bazel.

Supporters of the Navigation Center were indignant that, amid an evident homelessness crisis, waterfront residents would oppose a new shelter. The number of homeless people in San Francisco has grown 17% since 2017, according to data released this month.

— Dominic Fracassa

A proposed bond to fund the creation and rehabilitation of affordable housing in San Francisco has grown by another $100 million, bringing the total to $600 million, enough to make it the largest affordable housing bond in the city’s history.

Mayor London Breed and President Norman Yee announced the increase Friday after some updated number-crunching by the controller’s office revealed the city could afford to take on a bigger debt load without having to raise property taxes.

Breed and Yee co-chaired a working group that divvied up how the bond money would be spent. City officials rolled out a spending plan this month that allocated money for “shovel-ready” projects that can begin construction within four years, senior housing and housing reserved for middle-income residents.

But that was before the extra $100 million was uncovered. Officials have yet to decide how that money will be spent — assuming voters approve the bond with a two-thirds majority in November.

Supervisor Matt Haney said Friday that the $100 million should be used to create housing for “people who are coming out of mental health and substance abuse treatment” since “44% of people who exit residential treatment are released back onto the street, without housing exits,” he said.

It’s the second time the bond has grown in as many months. It was raised by $200 million in April — topping out then at $500 million — thanks to updated projections of property tax revenue.

Bonds are carefully crafted in San Francisco so the city can raise money for important projects without raising property taxes to pay off the debt. Raising taxes, city officials worry, would stymie a bond’s appeal with voters.

— Dominic Fracassa

Legislation to allow San Francisco to open safe-injection sites cleared the Assembly on Thursday.

The bill, AB362, was authored by Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton, and co-authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco.

If approved by the state Senate and Gov. Gavin Newsom, it would allow San Francisco officials to open facilities where intravenous drug users would be provided with clean needles and other equipment and shoot up under clinical supervision.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed similar legislation last October, saying he would not support a bill that didn’t include mandates that drug users undergo treatment. By contrast, Newsom has said he’s “very, very open” to a pilot program for safe injection sites.

Mayor London Breed has been among the most vocal champions of opening a site in the city, going as far as to promote a mock facility last year intended to give residents a tactile tour of what such a place would look and feel like.

Safe injection sites have existed for years in Canada, Europe and Australia. Advocates say that allowing drug users to shoot up with clean equipment and supervision can virtually eliminate overdose deaths, curb the spread of infectious diseases and provide access to addiction-treatment services when people are ready to get clean.

But even if the state sanctions safe injection sites, opening one would still be illegal under federal law, which prohibits “maintaining or providing access” to any space where illegal drugs are used. The Trump administration hasn’t hidden its hostility to the concept.

Last year, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to reiterate the administration’s stance, calling safe injection sites “very dangerous” and liable to “only make the opioid crisis worse.”

Email: cityinsider@sfchronicle.com, dfracassa@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfcityinsider, @dominicfracassa