In June 2024, HVSafe began raising concerns with City agencies regarding ongoing vendor activity operating within the Hayes Street closure area without visible permits or compliance with Shared Spaces requirements.
Subsequent correspondence was sent throughout 2024, again in January 2025, August 2025, September 2025, January 2026, March 2026, and June 2026, documenting continued vendor activity, recurring permit compliance concerns, and the absence of visible enforcement.
Over that period, the activity evolved from a recurring clothing tent operating within the closure to a branded commercial retail truck, sidewalk merchandise displays, and additional vendors testing similar arrangements.
Despite repeated documentation, supporting photographs, and weekly compliance reports, no substantive response or enforcement action has been provided.
Status: No substantive response received as of June 2026.
August 21, 2025 – Initial Email
HVSafe has been advocating for a fair and even playing field for small businesses and neighbors since the start of the Hayes Street closure. That’s why we believe the following issue is critical and needs to be remedied immediately. For over a year, a Fontana-based men’s clothing brand called SIGNATURE has routinely set up a tent to sell clothing on the closed 400 block of Hayes Street, with no visible permit or authorization. Neighbors have asked the operators directly for permits on multiple occasions. Each time, the response has been evasive or dismissive — the most we’ve been told is that Lloyd Silverstein and Andrew Seigner (HVNA/MC) have said “they’re cool with them selling on Hayes Street.”
We raised this issue with SFMTA last June. At that time, SFMTA/Monica stated:
“The Shared Spaces permit will document relevant code requirements, like this state law you’re referring to for vendor requirements. It’s the responsibility of the permit holder to ensure compliance.”
Since then there’s been zero enforcement and the problem continues week after week.
Permit-Specific Violations
- California Seller’s Permit Requirement – Vendors may only sell twice per year without a California Seller’s Permit. After that, they must have one. This tent has been set up weekly, far beyond the legal limit, with no permit displayed.
- Permit Holder Accountability – The Shared Spaces permit explicitly states that the permittee (HVNA) is responsible for ensuring vendor compliance. That responsibility cannot be delegated to private individuals. If the vendor is noncompliant, HVNA is in violation of its permit.
- Vehicle Restriction Violation – The tent is always accompanied by a large van parked either next to it or nearby. The street closure permit explicitly prohibits vehicles from parking on the closed block — yet this vendor routinely violates that restriction without consequence.
Escalation into Patricia’s Green
On Sunday, August 17, 2025, the same clothing vendor extended operations into Patricia’s Green. A Park Ranger responded and issued a citation for illegal vending, consistent with Park Code §7.03. Richard, who was present in his role as a community advocate, simply seeking to ensure that the rules were being followed, was treated as if he were the problem. Instead of enforcing the law with impartiality, all three men (the two operators and the Ranger) directed hostility toward him. He was asked to step away, while the unpermitted vendors who hold no lease, no business registration, and no accountability were granted patience and deference. One of the operators even said directly to his face: “I know all the merchants here and they all hate you.” Adding to the concern, the Ranger was overheard giving the operators advice on how to deal with the citation, rather than treating their conduct as a violation of law. This echoes rhetoric we have heard from Andrew Seigner and Lloyd Silverstein in the past. Irrespective of one’s opinion, Richard’s three decades of community work and advocacy should not be reduced to this kind of treatment — particularly when small businesses who pay rent, taxes, and fees are ignored while illegal pop-ups are allowed to chip away at the neighborhood’s economic landscape week after week.
The Urgent Issues
- Shared Spaces Compliance – Why is this vendor being allowed to operate on Hayes Street at all? This is one of many reasons why we have been asking for the permit to be revoked.
- Park Property Violations –Patricia’s Green is not a designated vending site. How will Rec & Park prevent this from happening again? We raise this because we have also witnessed other food and merchandise vendors popping up here.
- Business Licensing – Does this vendor have a valid business registration or temporary vending permit? We ask the Treasurer’s Office to confirm.
- Impact on Small Business – These unpermitted pop-ups directly undercut brick-and-mortar businesses who pay rent, taxes, and fees while others operate without accountability.
We ask for the following:
- Enforcement of the Shared Spaces permit terms. This repeated noncompliance cannot continue.
- A clear enforcement plan to prevent recurrence on Hayes Street and Patricia’s Green.
- Verification from the Treasurer’s Office on whether this vendor holds any valid permits or licenses.
- Support from the Office of Small Business to ensure local merchants are protected and treated fairly.
It is unacceptable that HVNA/MC appear to be granting “permission” to vendors without any legal authority, while agencies defer responsibility. This dynamic has created an environment of exploitation, conflict, and an unfair business landscape. The truth is, we are in this situation because of the continued street closure. Rather than address our concerns or level the playing field for neighbors and small businesses, agencies have looked the other way — allowing the problems to deepen and the harm to spread. This is not about one tent…it’s about the erosion of public process and accountability in Hayes Valley. It’s because of lack of enforcement and complacency that this ongoing issue has been allowed to fester.We expect a prompt inquiry and immediate enforcement action to correct this situation without further delay.
Thank you.
HVSafe
September 24, 2025 – HVS Follow-up
We are still awaiting a response on the below.
January 13, 2026 – HVS Follow-up #2
Attention: All Recipients
We are following up to confirm that the previously documented violations remain ongoing under the current Shared Spaces permit term, despite clear permit conditions and prior notice.
As stated in the permit, the permittee is responsible for ensuring:
- vendor compliance with California Seller’s Permit requirements,
- City business registration where business activity occurs, and
- adherence to vehicle restrictions within the closed roadway.
Despite these requirements, the same clothing vendor continues to operate in repeated violation of the permit:
- without visible business registration,
- without evidence of a California Seller’s Permit,
- and while accompanied by a large commercial van parked within the closed, car-free block in connection with the the vending operation.
This constitutes ongoing noncompliance with multiple permit conditions, for which the permittee is explicitly responsible.When neighbors have approached this vendor in the past to ask about permits, the operators responded with verbal hostility. As a result, residents now keep their distance when documenting ongoing violations to avoid escalation. This is an unacceptable condition in a public right-of-way and a direct consequence of prolonged non-enforcement.
See images from this last weekend (pic 1, pic 2, pic 3). We have also included a publicly posted image from a Hayes Street closure affiliated social media account showing the same vendor tent and vehicles operating within the closed roadway (pic 4). Together, these images confirm that the violations are recurring and openly acknowledged.
We are requesting:
- Written confirmation that SFMTA acknowledges these activities constitute violations of the permit.
- A summary of enforcement actions taken to date.
- An explanation for why permit revocation has not been initiated despite the repeated and unresolved violations.
Absent meaningful enforcement, continued operation under this permit is indefensible.
We expect a prompt response and immediate corrective action consistent with the permit’s enforcement provisions.
March 9, 2026 – Follow-up #3
We are following up on our January 13, 2026 correspondence regarding ongoing vendor activity operating in violation of Shared Spaces Permit No. 1316522.
As documented in that email and supporting images, the clothing vendor continues to operate on the closed block without visible permits or registration, and with a commercial vehicle parked within the designated car-free zone. As stated in the permit, the permit holder is responsible for ensuring vendor compliance and adherence to vehicle restrictions within the closed roadway.
The lack of enforcement has also begun to create spillover. When one unpermitted operation is allowed to continue openly in the public right-of-way, it signals to others that the permit conditions are not being administered. We have already observed additional vendors beginning to test the same arrangement. These conditions have been documented repeatedly in the weekly compliance reports previously shared with the agencies copied on this thread.
To date, we have not received a response to the questions outlined in our January 13 message.
For clarity, we are requesting written responses to the following:
- Written confirmation that SFMTA acknowledges these activities constitute violations of the Shared Spaces permit.
- A summary of enforcement actions taken to date.
- An explanation for why permit revocation procedures have not been initiated despite the repeated and unresolved violations.
Absent enforcement, the permit ceases to function as a regulatory framework and instead becomes discretionary access to public space, creating an uneven and unfair environment for nearby brick-and-mortar businesses operating under full compliance.
As stated in our prior correspondence, we request a prompt written response addressing the questions above.
Thank you.
June 8, 2026 – Follow-up #4
We are following up on our prior correspondence regarding ongoing vendor activity operating within the Hayes Street closure area under Shared Spaces Permit No. 1316522.
The agencies copied on this thread have been aware of these concerns since at least June 2024. The issue was identified early, repeatedly documented, and repeatedly raised with City staff. Nearly two years later, the same activity continues, additional vendors are appearing, and the underlying concerns remain unresolved.
This weekend, the same operator previously referenced in our correspondence was again conducting retail activity from a branded commercial truck, with merchandise displayed from the vehicle and on adjacent sidewalk racks. The vehicle was present during closure operations on Saturday and remained in the same location on Sunday. (See photo 1, 2 and 3.)
At this point, the issue extends far beyond a single vendor. The predictable result of prolonged non-enforcement has arrived. Operators increasingly behave as though these activities are permitted, additional vendors are beginning to follow the same model, and compliant small businesses are left competing against activity that appears exempt from the standards imposed on everyone else.
Brick-and-mortar businesses in Hayes Valley are expected to comply with licensing, registration, insurance, tax, labor, zoning, and public health requirements. They do not have the option of operating indefinitely while compliance questions remain unresolved. The standards should not be different in the public right-of-way.
Multiple rounds of correspondence, supporting photographs, and weekly compliance reports have been provided. Despite this, there has been no substantive response, no visible enforcement, and no indication that the permit conditions governing vendor activity are being administered in practice. A permit framework that is not administered or enforced ceases to function as a regulatory system and instead becomes discretionary access to public space. The resulting burden falls on compliant small businesses while public confidence in the permit process continues to erode.
Nearly two years after these concerns were first raised, the activity continues and the agencies responsible for administering the permit remain silent.
Thank you.
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.