November 9, 2026
Dear ISCOTT Members,
Hayes Valley Safe opposes the proposed two-year renewal of the recurring Hayes Street closure.
What began as an emergency-era accommodation in 2020 has continued for six years through successive annual permit renewals. For the first time, the permit holder is seeking a two-year authorization, extending the arrangement through November 2028 despite longstanding operational concerns, unresolved agency inquiries, documented transit impacts, and repeated requests for meaningful community engagement.
After six years, the question is no longer whether the closure can continue. It is whether SFMTA has adequately justified why it should. HVS’s formal administrative complaint seeking revocation remains without a substantive determination, and longstanding questions concerning transit, emergency access, and permit compliance remain unresolved.
This is not a routine continuation of an established permanent program. It is another substantial extension of an arrangement introduced as temporary. The existing record does not establish why two additional years are warranted.
Transit Impacts and the City’s Own Standards
The recurring closure requires the 6-Hayes bus to divert from its established route. At the October 28 SFCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, the Public Life Study presentation reported approximately 16% slower 6-Hayes operations on closure days. SFMTA’s May 4, 2021 Shared Spaces presentation identified specific consequences for roadway closure applications causing substantial or significant delays to active public transit service: denial, additional environmental review, or permit modifications. The reported 6-Hayes delays raise serious questions about the closure’s compatibility with SFMTA’s own roadway-closure standards. After six years of recurring diversion, SFMTA should have an established basis for determining whether the closure satisfies those standards. We ask SFMTA to identify the applicable standard, explain how the 6-Hayes impacts have been evaluated against it, and provide the findings or modifications supporting the proposed renewal.
The Market and Octavia Area Plan envisioned neighborhood growth supported by improved transit reliability and service. Repeatedly diverting an established transit route to accommodate a discretionary street closure is difficult to reconcile with those objectives. Transit should not remain subordinate to an arrangement originally introduced as temporary. Absent a demonstrated basis for concluding that the closure satisfies the applicable roadway-closure standards, continued authorization is not justified.
Six Years of Operational Concerns Without Resolution
HVS has submitted extensive documentation concerning recurring permit compliance issues, including unattended barricades, unauthorized vehicles within the closure, parking and loading restrictions, and emergency-access concerns. On April 10, 2026, HVS filed a formal administrative complaint requesting revocation of the closure permit, followed by supplemental documentation on June 16. We have not received a substantive determination addressing that complaint. Repeated inquiries concerning emergency access and operational oversight likewise remain unresolved.
These concerns are not newly raised objections awaiting initial review. They form part of an extensive administrative record developed over successive permit terms. SFMTA has repeatedly received documentation of recurring violations, requests for enforcement, and proposals for less disruptive operating arrangements. Six years of recurring violations and unresolved oversight questions warrant termination of the closure, not another two-year authorization. Successive renewals should not erase SFTMA’s responsibility to address the record accumulated under earlier permits.
Cumulative Neighborhood Impacts
The closure does not operate in isolation. Over the course of successive permit terms, Hayes Valley has experienced substantial business turnover, changing transportation conditions, and an increasing concentration of programmed activities, including the Hayes Valley Farmers Market and Entertainment Zone. While no single factor accounts for every business departure or neighborhood change, the cumulative effects of these overlapping arrangements must be weighed before the SFMTA Board authorizes another two years of recurring closures. The City should evaluate Hayes Street as a functioning residential, commercial, and transportation corridor, not simply as a location for programmed public activity.
Public Comment Is Not Meaningful Engagement
Perhaps most concerning is the continuing absence of substantive dialogue with affected residents and independent merchants who have raised objections and proposed alternatives over multiple renewal cycles. HVS and other community stakeholders have repeatedly submitted correspondence, requested information, and proposed alternatives, including seasonal reopening and event-specific permits. Yet these efforts have not resulted in meaningful consideration of reopening Hayes Street.
The opportunity to speak at a public hearing does not substitute for meaningful engagement. Nor does declining participation after years of unanswered inquiries establish community consensus.
Our newly completed Hayes Street Closure: A Documented Timeline traces six years of decisions, correspondence, and proposed alternatives, with supporting documentation.
Reopening Hayes Street Does Not Preclude Neighborhood Events
Supporting neighborhood events does not require maintaining a recurring street closure. These are separate questions that should not be conflated. Hayes Valley already has established public spaces, including Patricia’s Green, Parcel K, and Linden Street, as well as opportunities for individually permitted events at appropriate locations. HVS has repeatedly proposed restoring Hayes Street to ordinary circulation while accommodating specific events through established permitting procedures.
These alternatives allow neighborhood programming to continue without requiring a standing weekly transit diversion, recurring restrictions on commercial access, or the ongoing extension of a temporary closure. The City has not demonstrated that these alternatives are inadequate or that a recurring closure is necessary to sustain neighborhood activity.
Requested Action
Hayes Valley Safe opposes the proposed two-year renewal and calls for the recurring Hayes Street closure to end.
The recurring closure has already been afforded extraordinary latitude despite persistent operational concerns and repeated proposals for reopening. After six years of successive renewals, SFMTA should identify the evidence supporting continued closure and explain what conditions or criteria would warrant reopening Hayes Street. Without such an examination, the recurring renewal process risks allowing a temporary arrangement to become an enduring policy without meaningful reconsideration.
We ask that these objections be included in the ISCOTT record, made available to participating agency representatives, and forwarded to the SFMTA Board. SFMTA should decline the proposed renewal, restore Hayes Street to ordinary circulation, and accommodate neighborhood events through separately reviewed permits.
Thank you.