Beginning in 2025, Hayes Valley Safe sought information regarding the development of the Hayes Valley Entertainment Zone Management Plan after learning it was being developed with limited public visibility and participation. Over the following months, we engaged with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), submitting detailed comments regarding governance, stakeholder representation, transparency, notification, and accountability.
Initial Review of Draft Management Plan
October 31, 2025
Thanks for your last update and for keeping the dialogue open. We’ve reviewed the latest draft, while the edits around notice windows and review cycles are noted, they don’t materially change the structure or address the core issues we’ve raised. The plan still lacks enforceable oversight, relies on a narrow group (HVNA) to manage public space, and allows event activations without full ISCOTT or SFMTA review. There’s still no compliance mechanism and no record of inclusive participation.
We’re particularly concerned by the decision to limit participation to “opt-in” food and beverage businesses. That approach excludes most of the corridor’s merchants and residents, the very people most affected by the closure. It gives formal standing only to the subset of businesses that directly benefit from street closures and event activations, while removing retail and service operators from any voice in management or opt-out rights. This imbalance mirrors the broader pattern we’ve seen across the Hayes Street closure, the EZ framework, and the City-sponsored events all of which have been shaped by the same narrow set of interests. The result is a system where bars and restaurants are over-represented, while retail, neighbors, and small independent operators are effectively left out of the process altogether. It’s the same structure repeated three times.
Given that the closure is up for a hearing soon, finalizing this plan now feels premature and risks codifying an approach that may need to be adjusted accordingly. We also didn’t see any reference to liability coverage or insurance obligations for designated ‘Community Partners.’ If HVNA is being identified in that capacity, what protections or indemnification does the City require? Who bears responsibility for incidents or damages occurring during EZ activations?
As we’ve reiterated, we can’t endorse or participate in the plan unless it includes real enforcement, balanced governance, transparent notice, and opt-out rights. For context, more than 500 letters have been submitted opposing the EZ framework …a strong signal that the current approach and its proposed management structure don’t reflect community consensus.
If it helps to talk through next steps, we’re open to a call focused on these remaining structural points. Otherwise, the group’s role is on pause until a substantive revision is on the table.
Following this correspondence, OEWD revised portions of the draft Management Plan, including sections related to enforcement, review timelines, and public event notification. However, the revisions did not address the broader governance and representation concerns identified above.
Additional Governance & Process Concerns
January 20, 2026
One more quick follow-up to our prior exchange. Since providing our last round of feedback (below), we’ve reviewed records showing that Supervisor Mahmood’s office has been coordinating directly with HVNA on revisions to the draft Management Plan. One of our most concerning observations is HVNA’s request to remove key safeguards from the draft plan (particularly in Section IV). That, combined with the lack of acknowledgment of our feedback to date, raises serious questions about where this process is headed and who is shaping it. Given this status, it’s all the more urgent that transparency be built into every phase moving forward. This plan cannot be developed through a single channel alone.
We’ve also documented multiple efforts by HVNA leadership to sideline opposition, including the closure-related litigation that is currently unfolding. It’s troubling to see the same group now lobbying to weaken accountability. That’s the context in which our engagement with you and the EC has unfolded.
We want to underscore that an entire small business segment has been excluded from this process: independent retail operators — including some of the neighborhood’s longest-standing storefronts and prospective Legacy SF businesses. These are businesses that have anchored this corridor through years of policy failure since 2020, particularly tied to the Hayes Street closure. Yet they are being denied a voice while alcohol-focused venues and aligned organizations are granted outsized power.
Given the above, we want to ensure we’re directly involved in any revision conversations moving forward.
Governance Concerns Following Subsequent Developments
May 20, 2026
Since our January correspondence, an additional development has significantly heightened our concerns regarding the proposed governance and liaison structure contemplated under the Hayes Valley Entertainment Zone framework.
HVNA subsequently pursued a Civil Harassment Restraining Order against Hayes Valley Safe arising from lawful civic documentation and public oversight activities connected to the Hayes Street closure and related neighborhood conditions. The requested restraining order was ultimately denied by the Court.
Separately, records we have since reviewed show continued efforts by the same parties to weaken or remove several of the enhanced oversight and notification safeguards initially proposed for the Hayes Valley Entertainment Zone framework, including provisions related to evaluation frequency and event notice requirements.
Regardless of differing viewpoints surrounding the closure itself, these developments materially undermined confidence in the ability of Hayes Promenade/HVNA leadership, including Andrew Seigner, to function as a neutral, broadly representative, or trusted point of coordination for a district-wide Entertainment Zone framework involving residents, merchants, agencies, and dissenting stakeholders.
Given these developments, we do not believe it is workable or appropriate for Hayes Promenade or individuals directly involved in that litigation effort to serve as the primary operational liaison or public-facing coordinating entity for the Entertainment Zone moving forward.
Final Response to Revised Management Plan
July 10, 2026
Thank you for sending the revised Management Plan. Our review concludes that while operational revisions have been made, none of the fundamental governance concerns we have raised since October have been meaningfully addressed.
The revised framework continues to concentrate operational coordination, public communications, event programming, and stakeholder engagement within the same affiliated organizations that have promoted and managed these activities from the outset. At the same time, it provides no meaningful avenue for independent merchants or residents to participate in governance, seek impartial resolution, or raise operational concerns directly with the City. Those affected by recurring street activations and alcohol-related programming remain dependent on the very organizations responsible for planning and operating those activities. This imbalance is particularly significant for independent retailers, who bear recurring operational impacts while having no comparable role in governance, coordination, or review.
As discussed in our prior correspondence, HVNA’s decision to pursue legal action in response to lawful civic documentation and oversight of the Hayes Street closure had a chilling effect on public participation. That action is fundamentally incompatible with serving as a neutral public-facing liaison for a district-wide Entertainment Zone. As detailed in our previously issued formal notice regarding governance, representation, and public-process concerns (letter linked here), our concerns have consistently centered on the continued reliance on HVNA and its affiliated entities to serve as the City’s primary intermediaries for shaping neighborhood policies and operational decision making in Hayes Valley despite years of documented concerns.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed Management Plan. Our concerns have consistently centered on governance, representation, accountability, and public recourse rather than operational drafting revisions. Accordingly, our remaining comments/questions are limited to several operational and implementation issues requiring clarification:
1. Notification
Beyond information posted on a public website, what direct notification, if any, will independent merchants and residents receive regarding recurring Entertainment Zone activations, operational changes, or alcohol-related events?
2. Thursday Operations
The plan references recurring Thursday operations. Can OEWD clarify how Thursday activations fit within the proposed Entertainment Zone framework and how they relate to the existing Hayes Street Shared Spaces street closure schedule?
3. Patricia’s Green / Recreation & Parks
The revised draft introduces Recreation and Park Department approval for activities affecting Patricia’s Green. Under what circumstances would such approval be required, and what activities are contemplated within or adjacent to park property?
4. Organizational Identity
The draft appears to shift references between HVNA and Hayes Promenade. Can OEWD clarify which entity will serve as the official Entertainment Zone Lead, which entity assumes operational responsibility, and what distinction exists between the two under the Management Plan?
We look forward to your response.
Please also provide a final adopted copy of the Management Plan once it is complete so our records accurately reflect the version ultimately implemented.
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.