This page documents our formal notices to SFMTA.
April 14, 2026
We are following up on our February 12 submission and March 6 correspondence regarding procedural concerns with ISCOTT’s approval of the 2026 Head West event dates. To date, we have received no response.
The April event was scheduled to proceed this past weekend but was ultimately canceled due to weather. No response was provided in advance of the scheduled activation, despite our prior formal request for clarification, including unresolved concerns regarding vendor representation, lack of demonstrated community consensus, and the absence of any meaningful appeal mechanism for affected stakeholders.
At this point, the lack of response, despite a formal procedural request raises additional concerns regarding transparency and accountability, and is now part of the administrative record.
This matter now extends beyond a single event. It reflects a broader pattern in which:
- approvals proceed despite documented opposition,
- established advisory guidance is disregarded,
- and affected stakeholders are left without any procedural recourse.
We are requesting to convene a meeting with SFMTA leadership and relevant staff to address these outstanding issues and to clarify how similar approvals will be evaluated going forward. In particular, given the lack of demonstrated neighborhood consensus, we request that any future approvals for Head West in Hayes Valley be limited to no more than one event per calendar year unless and until clear consensus can be established.
Absent any mechanism for affected stakeholders to seek review or appeal, decisions of this nature proceed without meaningful procedural accountability. In that context, recent approvals following documented Supervisor involvement, without broader stakeholder discussion, raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the process.
March 6, 2026
On February 12 we submitted the attached letter (below) to SFMTA leadership requesting clarification regarding procedural concerns surrounding ISCOTT’s approval of the 2026 Head West dates in Hayes Valley.
We requested a written response within 14 days but have not received one.
For completeness, we are forwarding the correspondence here and request that it be included in the administrative record for the 2026 Head West permit approvals.
We would also welcome clarification from the agency regarding the procedural questions raised in the original letter.
February 12, 2026
We are submitting this letter in response to ISCOTT’s recent approval of four Head West event dates for 2026 in Hayes Valley.
Despite extensive documented neighborhood opposition, repeated testimony regarding merchant harm, and prior guidance from the Office of Small Business that future frequency should be contingent upon consensus, the permit was approved under conditions that raise serious procedural concerns.
ISCOTT does not provide a formal appeal mechanism for affected stakeholders. That structural limitation makes process integrity even more critical. When permits are approved in the face of substantial documented opposition and acknowledged lack of consensus, transparency and procedural safeguards must be clear.
We respectfully request a formal review of the process that led to approval, including clarification on the following:
1. Mischaracterization of Vendor Support
Support letters cited by staff appear to come primarily from non–Hayes Valley vendors participating in the event. These are not brick-and-mortar businesses operating within the affected corridor. Counting vendor participants as “local small business support” materially misrepresents neighborhood sentiment.
2. Disregard of Office of Small Business Guidance
As documented in June 2024 correspondence, OSB recommended that any increase in frequency be predicated on stakeholder consensus. No such consensus exists. Approval absent consensus contradicts that advisory framework.
3. Influence by Permit Beneficiaries
Disclosed communications show active lobbying by event beneficiaries and coordination with the District Supervisor’s office. When political coordination appears to supersede documented stakeholder harm, the integrity of the review process is called into question.
4. Refusal to Evaluate Merchant Harm
ISCOTT staff communications state that financial impact is not within ISCOTT’s evaluative scope. Yet the event directly affects commercial access, corridor viability, and merchant survival. A process that categorically excludes economic impact from consideration cannot claim neutral evaluation.
5. Absence of Meaningful Community Recourse
Because only the applicant may appeal under Transportation Code §5.14.38, affected stakeholders are left without procedural review. We request clarification as to what safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary or politically influenced approvals under this structure.
Requested Clarifications
- Written explanation of how the Office of Small Business’ June 2024 consensus-based recommendation was interpreted and applied in approving the 2026 permit dates.
- Clarification of what procedural recourse exists for affected merchants and residents when a permit is approved despite documented opposition, given that Transportation Code §5.14.38 limits appeal rights to the applicant.
This matter is not about one event. It concerns the integrity of the permitting process governing public streets in commercial corridors. These procedural concerns have been raised consistently over the past four years without substantive clarification or corrective action.
We request a written response within 14 days and ask that this letter be included in the formal administrative record for the 2026 Head West permit approvals.
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.