Dear Neighbors,

I’m pleased to be able to report to you that PHAN directors continued to work on the projects I outlined for those of you who were able to attend PHAN’s annual meeting last May.  What follows is an update on progress we have made.

I will begin with a report and request that you participate in one of our projects, the renaming of Julius Kahn Playground. The City itself has already determined that the playground must be renamed.  PHAN’s role is to recommend a new name, working together with both Chinese American, Jewish and neighborhood groups.  You can help, perhaps even have the distinct honor of suggesting the new name that is ultimately approved by the City.  Send your suggestions to PHAN through our website,  A working group composed of representatives of the organizations I mentioned, will tabulate the three or four most popular names suggested and then solicit your vote on those names and report the winner to the City, which will either approve or disapprove of the final choice.  So, although we’ve just gone through a lengthy mid-term election and voting cycle, please send your own or your family’s suggestions to us. There is no limit on how many names you can suggest!  

Fire prevention and protection were important focal points in our annual meeting, particularly along the Presidio Wall.  I am pleased to report that the Presidio Trust seems to have heard and understood our concerns, as the Trust has done much of what our fire prevention consultant recommended.  Tree-limbingof lower branches and clean-up under the trees has occurred between the Presidio and Arguello Gates on the Presidio’s side of the wall. As was pointed out at the May meeting, fire prevention activities are not a one-time event; they must be performed year after year.  PHAN’s board will continue to monitor the Presidio’s fire prevention efforts and encourage the Trust to do what we feel is necessary for our safety next summer as well.

Two major development projects, 3333 California Street and the CPMC Campus, as well the Litke development on the southside of the 3600 block of Sacramento Street, were discussed at the annual meeting.  All three remain active developments. Given the interest of residents in these three projects, PHAN will start carrying links on its website ( with information concerning the status of each project.  At this time, it appears the City is intent on pushing more housing into our neighborhood than any of these three developers originally planned or requested. The Planning Department has indicated an interest in increasing the 3333 California Street project to a level of approximately 770 units. As many of you know, our neighbors in Laurel Heights have legally established that the project should be treated as a state historic resource, both the building and the grounds.  The exact impact that legal status will eventually have on the project is unknown at this point.  The City Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will have to decide, as well as the courts if anyone is dissatisfied with what the City decides to approve. PHAN has not expressed support for the project in writing yet.  Generally, my sense is that the board would vote in favor of supporting the project if the number of units was limited to the mid-500’s.  It is unclear to me what position the PHAN board would take if the City insisted that 770 units had to be built before the Supervisors would approve it. 

The TMG project on the CPMC California Street campus will learn what the City thinks of its proposed project relatively soon.  PHAN has already gone on record and submitted a letter to the Planning Department supporting the project as proposed.  To my knowledge, no surrounding neighborhood association has opposed the TMG project, but some members of PHAN who reside close to the project have objected to specific buildings or portions of the project on the ground that they block their current views or sunlight. Whatever number of housing units the City insists on for this project, the number will be smaller but the size of individual units will be larger than will be the case at the 3333 California Street project.

The Litke development on the 3600 block of Sacramento Street contains an additional story as compared to what was once presented to PHAN. PHAN understands that this was requested by the Planning Department.  Due to the heavy involvement of the Planning Department in this project, there is nothing that PHAN can oppose with any hope of success, although I know that many of you object to the aesthetics of the project. But we will be watchful when the project breaks ground and we will give serious consideration to opposing any construction techniques or processes that contravene the City’s building code which you bring to our attention.  There are some merchants on Sacramento Street who have expressed serious concerns about the possible effects of the construction of this project at the same time as the TMG project is being constructed.  They fear that they and the rest of the Sacramento Street merchants will be affected in much the same way as the construction on Van Ness Avenue has harmed businesses along that street.  Accordingly, PHAN recommends that all residents of Presidio Heights continue to support the merchants along the Sacramento Street corridor throughout the construction phases of these projects, no matter how messy the streets may become.  Meanwhile, PHAN will work with the Sacramento Street Merchants Association to induce those at City Hall and in the Building Department to regulate the construction processes on the three development projects to minimize the negative impacts on our business neighbors as much as possible, as well as ourselves.

Turning to construction on our own homes, PHAN will be issuing a set of guidelines for residents to adopt when they launch home renovation projects.  These will appear soon, certainly before the spring of 2019 when home sales and renovations begin to pick up. The guidelines will be published on PHAN’s website (

We survived Halloween without incident as far as I know.  I must congratulate Traci Teraoka on organizing the Sacramento Merchants Association to provide an opportunity for  youngsters to trick or treat on Sacramento Street immediately after preschools and elementary school end.  It seems to have triggered an earlier start to the trick or treating on the residential streets, which  many of us appreciated

Do not hesitate to contact me or other members of the PHAN board through As many of you know, we do respond promptly and comprehensively to your inquiries.  I look forward to seeing your suggestions for rename JK Playground and I send you my best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.

Warm regards,

Charlie Ferguson



Letter from PHAN President, Charlie Ferguson

Dear Neighbors,

To begin, I will remind everyone that our annual neighborhood meeting will be held on May 15 at 7:00 p.m. at the old Presidio Golf Clubhouse.  Doors will be open at 6:30. Please come.  Our new supervisor, Catherine Stefani, is our featured speaker.  And, we will also be addressed by members of the San Francisco Fire Department which provides the staff and equipment for firefighting within the Presidio under contract with the Presidio Trust.  The PHAN board has asked the SFFD to address our concerns about a wildfire, should one breakout in the Presidio on one of those six or seven very hot, windy days that we typically see every summer and fall.  We have also asked a fire prevention consultant PHAN retained to speak to us that evening about the same topic.

In advance of our annual meeting, as always, it is my pleasure to update you on issues that your PHAN board has been studying and, when appropriate, acting on since my previous letter last fall. There is no particular order in which I am presenting the issues. So, without further ado, here are the matters to which the PHAN Board has been paying attention.

Renaming Julius Kahn Playground

Recently PHAN was approached by a representative of the Chinese Historical Society of America and Chinese for Affirmative Action seeking our commitment not to oppose the Park and Recreation Commission should that Commission decide to withdraw Julius Kahn’s name from our nearby playground and conduct public hearings on what to rename it.  PHAN has committed not to oppose such an action by the Park and Recreation Commission should it do so, but PHAN also asked for the right to participate in the renaming process should there be one. The general feeling amongst PHAN board members is that, if the playground is to be renamed, a geographic type name should be used.  An effort to research why the City named the playground for Kahn came up emptyhanded. The organizations mentioned above are seeking removal of Julius Kahn’s name because, while serving in the US Congress, he introduced certain federal laws that for years prevented Chinese immigration to the United States. If the name is changed, there will be a public process for renaming the playground.

SB 827

This legislation has recently received a significant amount of press coverage.  It was introduced into the California Senate by former SF Supervisor, now state Senator Scott Wiener.  The idea behind the proposed legislation, which has been withdrawn for the time being in the face of enormous opposition from across the whole the state, is to increase the amount of affordable housing for both low and middle-income Californians.  

While that is a laudable goal, particularly given the spike in the population of new residents coming to California on top of the natural population growth, the means Wiener initially chose to accomplish his goal was found to be quite objectionable.  Basically, his idea was to strip all cities, towns, counties and neighborhoods in the whole state of any ability to oppose development of higher heights and higher density within one quarter mile of any “transit corridor” in California.

In rural or suburban areas, that standard wouldn’t matter much, but in a city like San Francisco, it means that virtually the whole City would be open to higher height, higher density residential development, namely 85-foot high buildings with one and two-bedroom apartments or condos.  Specifically, the zoning laws would be automatically preempted in all cities if they limited housing to one, two or three-units per residential lot. Presidio Heights is entirely within one quarter mile of California Street, a so-called “transit corridor” due to the bus line(s) on it and we are zoned RH-1, 2 and 3. The multi-unit apartment buildings exist due to Conditional Use Permits that the originally developer had to procure from the Zoning Administrator; SB 827 would do away with that process and let anyone develop an 85-foot building with more than 3 units in it on any lot that falls within a transit corridor area.  

After introducing his bill and recognizing the incredibly negative reaction it got, Wiener withdrew it and then revised it and began selling the revised version to whoever would listen before re-introducing it. On behalf of PHAN, I opposed his initial bill and then after he withdrew it, I met with him to discuss how he should be treating neighborhoods like ours. His current draft of the revised bill contains protection for neighborhoods like Presidio Heights. The revised bill maintains current height limits (40 feet in Presidio Heights unless the Planning Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit) in all neighborhoods located on bus transit corridors, as opposed rail transit corridors (e.g., the Muni N Judah line).  

The relaxation of density restrictions (i.e., RH-1, 2 or 3) is still a part of his revised bill, which means that a 40-foot high structure on a lot that has been zoned for just one housing unit, can now be any number of units without having to seek a Conditional Use Permit but the building itself cannot exceed 40 feet.  Wiener assured me that he would not add into his revised bill any provision that would dilute the stringent laws in San Francisco that prohibit the demolition of existing historical buildings (virtually every residence in Presidio Heights is Class A or B for historic preservation purposes).

So, what this means is that under the revised bill that he will introduce a resident of a single-family home in Presidio Heights could conceivably renovate the interior of the home to break it up into as many separate housing units as he/she desires without having to go through the usual public hearing process to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.  It’s a much better situation than the bill as originally designed, but PHAN will be meeting with Wiener and his staff again to promote the idea that the density provisions of his revised bill should not be applicable to Presidio Heights either.

3333 California Street

This project has slowed down while the developer and UCSF, the landowner, negotiated a new deal.  Originally, UCSF only agreed to lease the land (10 acres) to the project developers. The term of the lease was 99 years.  That has changed; UCSF has now agreed to sell the land to the developers.

By owning the land, the developers can now sell fee simple title to buyers of the housing units (one and two-bedroom units).  This will make the units more valuable and desirable to the buyers. Under the original scheme the buyers could only sell the remainder of the 99-year lease term to subsequent buyers. PHAN has monitored this project closely from its inception and PHAN will continue to do so.  

Both my predecessor as president and I have met with the developers on several occasions to discuss the design features of the project. Now that the developers have complete title those discussions will pick up again. Currently, PHAN is generally in favor of the project but would like to see a relocation of some of the retail space along California Street near the intersection with Laurel and some modification of the architecture in that are pf the project as well. The developers have just recently submitted another plan to the Planning Department which PHAN will study and ask to discuss with them in the next few weeks.

CPMC Campus

The TMG group which is the developer on the CPMC California Street Campus has submitted plans to the Planning Department, which plans PHAN, and every surrounding neighborhood association, supports.  The remaining question is: How will the City Planning Department react to TMG’s plan? If the City demands more housing be built (a likely response), PHAN will join with the developers, and probably all the other neighborhoods, to oppose it. This will require a written submittal to the Planning Commission and appearance before the Commission to argue our position.

Renovation Projects within Presidio Heights

Several years ago, PHAN published on its website a list of suggested steps for how to elicit the support and good will of your neighbors when renovating your home/building.  The basic concepts were (1) give notice as early as possible to your immediate neighbors about your project’s design and your contractor’s plans for how to manage construction of your project; and (2) be courteous to your neighbors and see that your contractor’s employees do the same.  It seems that the time has come to re-publish our suggestions. The PHAN board has lately received complaints from neighbors about construction projects, so we will revise our prior suggested steps for renovating and publish them on our website soon.

Fire Prevention and Protection  

As mentioned above, an ad hoc committee of the board has been addressing the Board’s concerns about a wildfire breaking out in the Presidio.  The sheer number of wildfires that broke out last summer throughout the state and especially the Santa Rosa fires was a warning to everyone that wildfires can invade urban areas.  We expect the SFFD to explain to us at our annual meeting how it is that they assess the danger and what they would do if a wildfire did breakout in the Presidio. As an added precaution, PHAN’s Board solicited an assessment from a highly respected fire prevention consultant who will also share his views on the topic at our annual meeting.  

Wireless Carrier Antennas

As many of you realize, our neighborhood has been invaded by the wireless carriers, at least by the two giants of the industry, AT&T and Verizon.  Several of you, with help from PHAN, have written protests, appeared in department hearings and even before the Board of Permit Appeals to oppose installation of the antennas on light poles in front of your homes. These antennas are for data transmission, not voice communications.  There is a monumental struggle going on across the United States and throughout California, including Presidio Heights over how to site these antennas. Some of you have identified health hazards as the reason for your opposition to the installations, but the federal government for the time being has preempted any such arguments, so they fall on deaf ears.  Others of you have cited the disturbing aesthetics of the antennas, which look like alien pods on the top of the light poles in our neighborhood and which, again by fiat of the federal government, can be enlarged at will by the wireless companies without the need for further local approval.

The fight over the aesthetics has been an uphill battle so far.  The City, despite having enacted legislation to protect neighborhoods from the disfiguring effect of installing scores of antennas in a neighborhood, has not yet rejected a single request from the wireless companies to install their antennas, and there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of antennas already installed in the City.  Perhaps the City’s reluctance to reject a permit is because the City receives $4,000/year in rent for each light pole it allows Verizon or AT&T to use.

As many of you have found, the City typically issues a permit to the wireless companies before the public knows anything about it.  Even then, the City only requires the wireless companies to notify a few neighbors of the fact that a permit has already been issued.  Accordingly, PHAN encourages those who do receive notice of an antenna installation to immediately pass along the information to PHAN by email at so that we may assist you if we can.  PHAN is on record at City Hall that it does not object to technological advancement rather it objects to being cut out of the process of deciding where the antennas should be sited from an aesthetic standpoint.  

I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible on Tuesday evening, May 15 at our annual meeting.


Charlie Ferguson


Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors

Letter from PHAN President Charlie Ferguson  Dec. 2017

Dear Neighbors,

The PHAN board is committed to helping all residents of Presidio Heights, however we can throughout each year. All of us are proud of the accomplishments made during the past year and we look forward to being of service to the neighborhood in 2018.

As I did when I was last president of PHAN, I will balance the efforts of the board as much as possible evenly between proactive and reactive efforts.  

The Presidio and Wildfires

In a proactive vein, at our last board meeting a few weeks ago, the board determined that PHAN should request that the Presidio Trust provide us with information about how it would protect our neighborhood in the event a wildfire should break out in the Presidio. The recent wildfires in northern and southern California have put everyone on alert that such disasters are not easy to confine to remote wilderness and forest areas, but can and recently have, scorched urban residential areas destroying large commercial buildings along with hundreds of homes.  In our neighborhood, the prevailing winds blow on Presidio Heights directly from the northwest, meaning that any wildfire that starts in the Presidio forest will be blown in our direction. 

I am pleased to report that the Presidio has been very quick to respond to our request for information. Together the PHAN board and responsible officials in the Presidio will be working on a presentation for the PHAN membership (every adult resident of Presidio Heights is a member of PHAN, but only those who pay the annual dues may vote) to be presented to the PHAN membership at our annual meeting in May 2018, ahead of the start of the 2018 fire season.  We expect to secure a meeting place for the annual meeting by March and we will send out notice of the location and date of the meeting soon thereafter, as well as publish the same information on our website at  I, for one, expect to learn how the Presidio plans to fight a wildfire, how soon and by what means we will be apprised of the danger, if any occurs, and what residents in the path of such a fire should be prepared to do to protect themselves, families, pets and homes. At this time, we have had far less rain than last December and that may mean a very dry summer lies ahead. 

Coyotes in the Neighborhood

In the first board meeting in 2018, the directors will also discuss whether and how we should approach the Presidio about the number of coyote sightings in our neighborhood.  It seems to be reaching a tipping point and personally I never expected to have to worry about encountering a coyote in our neighborhood.

Development Projects: TMG Project

I have three matters to report on that require reactive measures from board members and neighbors alike.  The first is the TMG development project for the current CPMC California Street campus.  

As it happens, TMG recently informed me of the latest update to their plans.  TMG has just submitted its application for a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development Permit to the Planning Department.  These applications for large developments are not submitted until after there has been a considerable amount of discussion between the developer and the surrounding neighborhoods and the developer and Planning Department staff.  TMG's application was no exception to the general rule.  

One change to what we have seen before is that TMG has agreed to the Planning Department's demand for more housing than the original 240 units. TMG has now added another 18 units of housing.  I personally do not think this calls for any change in PHAN's position on this development.  (We joined with our neighbors from Jordan Park and Laurel Heights in supporting the project as previously proposed.)  The reason I do not think we need to do anything as drastic as withdrawing our prior approval is that the way TMG added the new housing units is not something that added to the exterior shape of any of the buildings previously proposed.  TMG is splitting the interior structure of some buildings into two units of housing instead of a single unit. Parking, one of our key concerns, was added to account for the extra units, which is consistent with our preferences.  

The City also demanded some changes in the streetscapes around the project. So, the latest plan calls for changing parking along Maple Street from 90-degree parking to parallel parking and slightly narrowing Maple Street.  TMG also agreed to add street lighting and furniture and a pedestrian bulb-out at Sacramento and Maple and a bus bulb-out at California and Maple. The PHAN board will review the streetscape changes and determine whether there are any aspects that concern us enough to withdraw our prior approval of the project.  If anyone has concerns, please send your concerns by email to

Development Projects: 3333 California Street

The project at 3333 California Street is moving at a slower pace due to its size and the size of the property itself.  Over the summer, I met with the development group and expressed concern on the part of a significant number of PHAN members who live on California Street that the commercial retail spaces currently planned to stretch from the southeast corner of Laurel Street to Walnut Street should be moved eastward, so that some of the retail commercial space would extend east of Walnut Street and the commercial spaces near the southeast corner of Laurel and California could be reworked into somewhat more residential space.  The primary reason for the change is to avoid pressure on the parking spaces behind Laurel Village.  

Although the 3333 California Street Project has plenty of parking for retail already in the plan, it is underground parking and reached by entering from Presidio Avenue.  Many drivers may be tempted to avoid driving to Presidio Avenue to park underground in favor of just driving into the parking lot at Laurel Village and walking on street level directly into stores in that portion of the new development.  That would only exacerbate congestion at Laurel and California Streets. The neighborhood association in Laurel Heights has also pointed this out. 

In general, we favor the project and have said so in writing and will continue to support it, particularly if the Planning Department insists on a significant expansion of the size of the project. The developers currently plan to build around 550 housing units, but the Planning Department has informally made references to requiring much more than that.  The PHAN board is watching this project closely, but it is still many months away from a formal submission to the Planning Department.  Again, you may submit your thoughts and comments to us through

Development Projects:  Verizon's 5G Network

Finally, many of you have already noticed and, in specific instances, formally opposed efforts by Verizon Wireless to install a 5G Network in our neighborhood.  PHAN has been actively involved as well.  Verizon's efforts in our neighborhood are part of its effort citywide to install several hundred wireless antennas on light poles.  I have been informed by Verizon that the effort is aimed at increasing the carrying capacity of its system for data.  So, in one sense, the new network would increase your smartphone's ability to receive and send data (i.e., text messages) and if you use Verizon to stream data, such as movies and TV shows, in your house, the new 5G system would also help.  I'm not sure it would help with voice transmission and I have been told by Verizon's lawyers that the system is intended to help with data transmission only.

Some background is necessary to understand the disputes residents have initiated. The wireless industry last year tried to eliminate opposition from residents of California to the installation of the 5G networks by sponsoring a bill in the California legislature known as SB 649.  The bill would have granted all wireless carriers an absolute right to use any and every light pole, stop light pole, transit pole, telephone and utility pole in the entire State of California for a mere $250/year rent per pole to install wireless antennas and associated equipment. The bill was passed unanimously by the legislature.  However, the mayors of 350 or more cities in California wrote individual letters to Governor Brown asking him to veto the bill.  He did shortly before Thanksgiving.  

While that was going on in the legislature, T-Mobile launched a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco seeking to restrain the City from ever enforcing existing or enacting new legislation to control the installation of antennas and associated equipment on light poles, telephone poles, etc. in the "right-of-way" (i.e., the space along the curb where light poles, telephone poles, etc. are located).  That lawsuit is pending before the California Supreme Court, which has been waiting to see whether SB 649 would succeed or fail because if it had succeeded, there would be no reason for the Court to decide T-Mobile's lawsuit.  Both SB 649 and the T-Mobile lawsuit seek the same result ... freedom to install wireless equipment on the street light poles, telephone poles, etc. throughout the whole state without regulation of any kind.  Now that SB 649 is dead, the Court should move ahead and decide the case.  I have read the brief submitted by the City of San Francisco, and the City has done a very good job of defending its existing laws regulating the installation of wireless equipment. 

However, the federal government, whose laws preempt all others, has specifically limited states and cities to regulating only the location of wireless equipment for aesthetic reasons. For example, the Federal Communications Commission has forbidden anyone from attacking the installation of wireless equipment because it is harmful to human health, so long as the wireless equipment is designed not to emit more radio waves than the FCC has dictated. 

In San Francisco, the aesthetically protected areas are historic buildings and districts (most of Presidio Heights qualifies for registration as a state historic district and most of the homes in Presidio Heights have the highest historic rating assigned to them); streets that have "good" or "excellent" views (many of the streets in Presidio Heights are listed as having good or excellent views); streets that have utilities located underground (all of the streets in Presidio Heights fall into this classification); and streets that have special character (most of the streetscapes in Presidio Heights feature well designed and maintained trees and we are often referred to as the "tree street" neighborhood both because of the street names and the trees).  

In short, these areas are all protected from "significant impairment" by wireless equipment.  Two neighborhoods have currently been active in challenging wireless installations, ours and Russian Hill.  It's something of an uphill battle because nobody has ever won a challenge and the City itself, although vigorously fighting in court for the right to regulate the placement of the wireless equipment has permitted the wireless companies to install their equipment on hundreds and hundreds of light poles throughout the City.  Only three proposed installations (all three on the Lombard switchback or near to it) were denied.

PHAN's position is that we welcome technical improvements but insist that we be consulted on the locations of the antennas because they are disturbingly unattractive and draw one's attention away from the views, homes, streetscapes and run counter to the uniform placement of utilities underground throughout the neighborhood.  We have proposed other locations for the equipment that in our view would work just as well technically, but Verizon has repeatedly argued that only the spots it has picked out, which it refuses to divulge in advance and only discloses to a few residents nearby each pole it selects, are the best.  By the time anyone learns about an individual installation, the City has already approved of the installation. 

Nonetheless, there are arguments to be made that the City agencies responsible for issuing the permits are not following the law as enacted by the Board of Supervisors.  If you are concerned about one or more of these installations, please contact PHAN as soon as possible if you would like information about or help opposing the installation.  I have also been in discussions with our Supervisor, Mark Farrell, about amending the existing law to require consultation with the neighborhood before seeking a permit to install wireless equipment.  

Please Become a Member of PHAN!

In closing, I respectfully would remind you that every PHAN director donates his/her time representing the neighborhood in a wide variety of capacities and before many different agencies.  It helps to be able to say that we have a high percentage of dues paying members because the government officials before whom we appear are aware that every resident in Presidio Heights is automatically a member of PHAN.  What counts for them is how many residents are willing to pay dues, which is sign of real interest in how the neighborhood looks. Our dues are low compared to other neighborhoods that are comparable to us in terms of how well kept they are, like St. Francis Woods. 

So please keep your dues current if you have been paying them and, if not, please consider starting to do so.  The money goes to paying for the events we sponsor for the whole neighborhood; filing fees we pay to various government agencies before whom we appear or with whom we file annual reports; and those who provide professional services to us.  You can pay your $40 dues online or send your dues with a note to: PHAN, P.O. Box 29503, San Francisco, CA 94129.

Again, I extend best wishes for the new year from all the directors.

Charlie Ferguson


President's Letter

May 1st, 2017

Fellow Neighbors,

On behalf of the Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors (“PHAN”), I hope that you are enjoying a healthy and prosperous 2017. 


Welcome our California Street neighbors to PHAN.   PHAN amended its boundaries to formally include the residences on the north side of California Street in the Association. We welcome those neighbors and urge those of you who are in that group to let us know your views on the issues facing our beloved neighborhood as discussed below or in any respect not addressed below.

Upcoming Neighborhood Events. The following events are coming soon in our neighborhood:

PHAN Neighborhood Picnic at Clay Street Playground: Sunday, May 7th from noon to 3PM. Free tacos, firetruck and face painting. Come meet your neighbors!

Sacramento Merchants Street Sidewalk Sale: May 20th. 10-6       Broderick to Spruce St.                  In conjunction with SF Small Business Week. Neighborhood shopping districts are given a blanket permit to allow stores sidewalk space to sell and how their products.   Sacramento Street Merchants like to do their way and make it into a fun day to visit Sacramento St.  From Sue Fisher King to The Ribbonerie.   (Broderick to Spruce) 

PHAN Annual Meeting: May 23rd, 2017     7PM - 9PM   Presidio Golf and Concordia Club.

2017 PHAN Dues:  We appreciate your payment of the annual dues as the only source of revenue to assist us in serving the neighborhood.  $40.

Mailing list for e-newsletters:  Please provide an updated email address so that we can communicate quickly and cost effectively.    If you have already paid dues for 2017.  We thank you for your support!


PHAN’s Board’s Ongoing Focus on the Two Major Redevelopment Projects

In 2016, the PHAN Board continued tracking two major redevelopment projects:  1.) the California Street campus of CPMC at 3700 California Street and 2)  Laurel Hill campus of UCSF at 3333 California Street. Both of these redevelopment projects will be taking place at about the same time over  a two to three year period beginning around 2020.  When completed, they will add between 800 and 900 residential units (apartments and homes) to our neighborhood. These two projects will alter the look and feel of our neighborhood so it is important that we add our input to the development process and guide the ultimate outcome to something that we can live with and be proud of. 

Both developers have proactively engaged with the community as they are developing their plans. This is frankly not typical for commercial development projects. Representatives of the PHAN Board have participated in all community and stakeholder meetings with the developers of both projects providing critical feedback to their evolving plans.

CPMC Redevelopment (3700 California Street). The PHAN Board has concluded, after receiving a request for support from the developers and after lengthy discussion and consideration, that the plans for the CPMC site, which now reflect specific architectural designs as well as general site plans, reflect a thoughtful and high quality redevelopment of the site that is deserving of our initial support at this time. This project is at a preliminary planning stage with the Planning Department, and there remains much more work to be done by the developers in completing their plans and responding to input from the Planning Department. The PHAN Board will continue to follow closely and comment on the more specific plans for the project both as to any refinements or changes of the basic architectural design or with respect to matters such as handling traffic and parking and dealing with environmental impacts both during construction and afterwards. The current plans for this redevelopment can be found online at

UCSF Redevelopment (3333 California Street). Todate  PHAN Board has not been asked for a statement of support by the developers for the UCSF site. The plans at this point do not reflect the level of detail of conceptual architectural design that has been put forth by the developers of the CPMC site but that should be forthcoming in the coming months. The Board has expressed our concerns to the developers about issues associated with traffic and parking, height and bulk, the type of retail that might be introduced on the site and its impact on existing retail in the neighborhood, the type and uses of office space that might be introduced on the site and the final architectural design. The current plans for this redevelopment can be found online at While the PHAN Board has not been asked for and has not taken a position on the developers’ plans at this time as they are still being revised and refined, the Board has issued a statement enclosed herewith on its position regarding this project which supports continuing the ongoing dialogue with the developers about further refinements and revisions to their plans to address our concerns.

Please let us know your position on these redevelopment projects and take the time to inform yourself and your neighbors about these ultimately transformational projects that, whether we like it or not, are inevitably coming to our neighborhood with a significant number of new residential units and possible additional retail and office space.

Other Matters PHAN Is Tracking

Scoot. The Board has been receiving comments from neighbors about the presence of Scoot motorcycles on our streets. Scoots are bright red electric motorcycles that can be used by Scoot members on a pay per use basis (like ZipCar or, in New York City, Citi Bike). Information about Scoots can be found at their website, Scoot has favorable parking rights in certain city permit parking zones in our and other neighborhoods as detailed on their website pursuant to an initial pilot program with the City. There are fellow neighbors who use and rely on the Scoot service but there are also neighbors who are very inconvenienced by Scoots that have been parked in a way that blocks their ability to park a car across their driveway or otherwise occupies usable parking. The Board has conveyed our concern about the Scoot program as it presently is working to the City and the Company. 

Residential Parking Permits. In conjunction with discussions with the City about Scoot, we have learned that the City is studying the residential parking permit program generally which may lead to changes in the program. We will keep you apprised of any developments in that regard that may be of concern. 

Laurel Village Improvement Project. The SFMTA has approved plans for a capital project at Laurel Village that will involve building bulb outs for bus stops and pedestrian crossings that will take away a number of current angle parking spots. Most significantly, the eastbound California Street bus stop that is currently in front of Walgreens will be moved to in front of Starbucks as part of this improvement project. Work on the project is slated to begin in November and last for a year. Click on this link to see the DPW site for the project.

Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District. PHAN is focused on the viability of Sacramento Street as a retail district that is a defining element of our neighborhood. There have been recent vacancies in the retail establishments on Sacramento Street and some of the new additions replacing these vacancies have had the character of medical services and not strictly retail. The PHAN Board feels that the neighborhood will be better served by more conventional retail offerings. Let us know your views on this important issue.

Neighborhood Security. Another important matter facing our neighborhood is an increased instance of crime and increased levels of fast through traffic on certain of our neighborhood street. We all need to be vigilant both with respect to our own home security as well as the activity in our immediate neighborhood around our neighbors’ houses and dangerous traffic activity around the neighborhood at particular times of the day. 

Please don’t hesitate to let me or any of the other PHAN directors know about issues that you feel we should be focused on and thank you for helping to make our neighborhood the jewel that it is.

We hope to see you at one or all of the May events!  and my thanks again for your continuing support of PHAN.

Bill Hudson
President, Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors