This page documents Hayes Valley Safe’s April 21, 2026 opposition to the proposed Hayes Street Farmers Market during SFMTA’s ISCOTT approval process, along with a May 13 follow-up. The correspondence raises concerns about authorizing another recurring, year-long street closure on a commercial corridor already subject to a contested Shared Spaces closure and an unresolved administrative complaint. HVS called for broader stakeholder engagement, consideration of alternative locations, and a coordinated evaluation of cumulative impacts on existing businesses and residents before implementation.
April 21, 2026 – Initial Email
Attention SCOTT Committee,
We are writing to oppose the proposed weekly farmers market on the 400 block of Hayes Street.
We do not oppose a farmers market in principle. Our concern is with advancing it in this location, particularly on a block already subject to a contested and unresolved street closure. There are existing open spaces in the neighborhood that could accommodate this type of activation without adding further impacts to an already constrained commercial corridor.
We also note that no corridor-wide evaluation of alternative locations appears to have been conducted. More appropriate locations exist in the neighborhood for this type of activation, but those options were not meaningfully explored through a broader engagement process.
While the proposal is being processed as a “special event,” its structure and duration function as a recurring, year-long street closure. In practice, this would layer a second ongoing closure onto the same block that is already subject to a Shared Spaces permit.
In effect, this proposal creates a parallel closure through a separate permitting channel, without undergoing the level of review typically required for a long-term change in street use. That existing closure is currently under formal administrative complaint with SFMTA for sustained noncompliance. Advancing an additional recurring use during that process compounds those impacts without resolution. Proceeding while that complaint is unresolved is premature and risks further harm before those issues are addressed.
There has been no clear, coordinated evaluation of cumulative impacts associated with overlapping uses on this corridor, including access, deliveries, parking, circulation, and the day-to-day viability of small businesses.
Many affected corridor businesses and residents were not aware of this proposal until public notice was posted. Earlier, corridor-wide outreach would likely have surfaced these concerns and alternatives before the proposal reached this stage.
The perspectives reflected in this proposal do not appear to represent the full range of stakeholders on the corridor. Hayes Street is a mixed-use, tenant-heavy environment where small businesses and residents rely on consistent access, visibility, and day-to-day functionality. Proposals that materially affect these conditions warrant broader, more balanced input than appears to have been incorporated here.
Recent events involving legal action related to participation in this issue may have contributed to a more constrained engagement environment. In that context, the absence of broader outreach and dialogue is particularly concerning, as it further limits the ability of stakeholders to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them.
At a certain point, a series of recurring “temporary” approvals functions as a long-term reallocation of public space. That kind of outcome warrants a more transparent, coordinated, and comprehensive review than the special event process provides.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that this proposal not be approved under the special event framework, as it advances a long-term use of public space without the level of review, coordination, and consensus such a change requires.
May 13, 2026 – Follow-Up
We understand the Hayes Street Farmers Market item is proceeding on the consent calendar, so we will keep this brief.
We continue to believe that adding a recurring year-long use onto a corridor already operating under an unresolved Shared Spaces closure and ongoing administrative review warranted broader coordination and cumulative corridor review before implementation proceeds.
A temporary pause was requested to allow for broader stakeholder engagement and evaluation of corridor-level impacts, and we wanted those concerns preserved in the record.
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.