Coyotes and Close Encounters
Anyone in San Francisco who’s heard the high-pitched bark — more like a “yip yip yip” — on a quiet night knows we live among coyotes. They were here first, and now that they’re back, they’re not going away. Two years ago, after several tense encounters, the Presidio banned dogs from certain footpaths to avoid coyotes who aggressively protect their pups.
There are now likely dozens of coyotes in the city, says Deb Campbell of SF Animal Care and Control. City and Presidio officials have become much more (wait for it) wily, posting notices in areas with coyote activity — which means many, if not most, of our open spaces, including Bernal Heights and the woodsy areas around Coit Tower. The main threat, though, is to the coyotes themselves as they move about their spacious territories. In fiscal 2017–18, the city picked up 18 who were hit and killed by cars. The worst corridor is 19th Avenue, the toughest barrier to cross in the western half of the city, according to Campbell.
Most killed are young, fresh from their parents’ care and moving out on their own. “The young coyotes are naïve about crossing streets,” says Presidio Trust ecologist Jonathan Young. “One ran in front of me on my drive to work this morning! Perhaps self-driving cars will reduce these collisions.”
The Presidio mating pair is still going strong, according toYoung. The only pup of theirs to survive so far had to move away. Its name is “09M” and apparently he has found love in a San Mateo county canyon. Aw yeah, dawg!
The Local Sierra Club and the Old ‘Garage’
It seems global warming melts glaciers faster than San Francisco builds housing. Two years ago we reported on a proposal to develop what is now a one-story garage/radiator shop/warehouse at 650 Divisadero Street. A project of some kind has been planned at this Divisadero location since at least 2013 with no progress — even in the thick of a twin crisis of housing and homelessness.
Why would 650 Divisadero, or any other housing around the city, take so long to break ground? Cue the litany of tried-and-true obstacles: It’s said to be historic, even as it really isn’t. It doesn’t include a high number of affordable units, even though the level of affordability sought would effectively nix the project without public subsidies. But most important, there hasn’t been a proper analysis of the potential environmental impacts.
Into that mix waded the local chapter of the Sierra Club. The national organization strongly supports urban development as a key way to stop sprawl, the worst possible environmental outcome. A local representative told The Frisc that the group wasn’t opposed to housing at 650 Divisadero; it just wanted to be sure potential toxins from the site’s previous uses wouldn’t seep into the ground. Fair enough. But at a meeting to discuss the project in early 2017, the local chapter opened the floor to longtime antigrowth activists like Affordable Divis and Calvin Welch to argue against redeveloping the site.
Last November, SF’s Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the development, which calls for 66 apartments, about a dozen of them affordable. No permits to knock down the old building have yet been issued, according to city records.
A bigger change is coming a couple of blocks away. At 400 Divisadero, a 186-unit building has just been approved to replace a gas station and car wash.
Perhaps the biggest change of all: The local Sierra Club recently signaled a shift on housing with a set of blog posts that come across as new mission statements.
At the end of May came a piece titled “Unpacking myths about housing development in the Bay Area,” and another, “What the Sierra Club is doing at the local level to tackle the housing crisis,” followed a week later. (They’re both written by the local chapter’s community outreach coordinator, Julia Foote, who did not respond to several requests for comment.)
The “unpacking myths” post is a straightforward takedown of basic NIMBY beefs about development, including ones aired at the 2017 local meeting: that adding housing is bad for traffic; that there isn’t enough water or “infrastructure” to sustain the additional people; that existing residents will inevitably be displaced; that there will be a loss of local zoning control and political leverage; and that the “character” of the neighborhood will be undermined.
The second post, devoted to the housing crisis, talks about transit-oriented development and “priority development areas.” It espouses the same goals of the in-limbo legislation SB 50 from state Senator Scott Wiener, to put housing near jobs and public transportation, taking account of sensitive communities, more rural areas, and so on.
Should you run out and join the local Sierra Club now that it’s off the NIMBY Kool-Aid? That’s up to you, and not as significant as the fact that the local branch of the organization has put its imprimatur on new housing for a growing city and Bay Area — instead of propping up nativist, exclusionary arguments and activists.