Hayes Street Shared Spaces Permit — Policy and Governance Considerations for Board Review

November 17, 2025

Dear Members of the SFMTA Board:

The Hayes Street Shared Spaces permit renewal advancing from the October 23 ISCOTT hearing raises multiple policy, governance, and procedural questions that merit Board-level review before final approval. Outlined below are the core issues limited strictly to regulatory intent, administrative capacity, and policy alignment.

I. POLICY & PLANNING CONFLICTS

1. Use of COVID-Emergency Tools Beyond Their Intended Scope

The Hayes Street weekend closure continues to rely on the Shared Spaces emergency framework, a tool created for short-term pandemic recovery—not for a recurring, multi-year street closure affecting a major commercial corridor. Using these mechanisms for a multi-year program exceeds their intended purpose and has created a quasi-permanent closure without legislative authorization, performance criteria, or compliance oversight.

2. Conflict With the Market & Octavia Area Plan

A recurring, multi-year street closure restricting east-west circulation directly contradicts the Market & Octavia Area Plan’s adopted land-use and mobility goals for Hayes Street as a mixed-use commercial corridor. The plan does not contemplate or authorize recurring closures of this nature.

3. No Evaluation Metrics or Enforcement Capacity

The program has no defined:

  • success criteria
  • enforcement plan
  • performance metrics
  • compliance reporting
  • third-party evaluation
  • baseline data

At the ISCOTT hearing, City staff raised concerns about enforcement capacity and the sustainability of maintaining recurring closures with limited resources. The Fire Department’s statement that it is “in recess for next year’s renewal” further reflects institutional strain. The permit has never undergone a comprehensive performance review in five years, and it has remained noncompliant every week in the current term. That this program continues without review is itself a governance failure.

4. Regular Use vs. Event Use

Activities occurring under this permit (markets, music, vendor pop-ups, and social events) fall under Special Event permitting, not transportation or safety needs. San Francisco already has established, consistent, event-by-event processes for street closures. Using a Shared Spaces permit to enable recurring event use normalizes an off-framework pathway inconsistent with citywide standards.

5. Concentration of Control

Reliance on a single nonprofit as:

  • permit holder
  • operator
  • activation coordinator
  • and promoter of the Entertainment Zone

consolidates control of a public right-of-way within a narrow set of actors.

This structure:

  • lacks neutral governance
  • lacks accountability mechanisms
  • circumvents stakeholder diversity requirements
  • creates precedent for private gatekeeping of a public street
  • is not representative of business needs (the organization is not a business association)
  • creates a conflict of interest by controlling closure, event programming, and policy advocacy

This is a structural governance issue, not a community-preference question.

5. Selective Communication & Control of Public Narrative

A recurring concern from corridor stakeholders is the concentration of public-facing communication channels through the nonprofit permit holder. Because the organization controls:

  • branding of the closure  
  • promotional channels on the block (including the Parcel K “community board”)  
  • messaging related to the closure and related initiatives  

–stakeholders who support reopening have **no neutral venue** for expression or inclusion.

This has resulted in:  

  • no public forum for balanced discussion  
  • suppression or removal of counter views  
  • no venue for affected operators to express harm  
  • exclusive control of public narrative by the permit holder  

A program operating on a public street requires neutral outreach and communication pathways, not messaging that excludes affected stakeholders.

The public record now includes repeated testimony from individuals who do not live here, do not operate businesses here, and do not shoulder the commercial, operational, or financial responsibilities of maintaining a storefront on Hayes Street. Meanwhile, many long-term operators and residents have stopped speaking publicly due to fear of backlash, online targeting, or boycotts. This is not community consensus, it is a distorted signal. There is a growing, deeply frustrated majority in Hayes Valley who feel unheard and unprotected, and who have lost confidence in a process that has remained unchanged despite years of documented harm.

II. GOVERNANCE & PROCESS FAILURES

6. Procedural and Due-Process Concerns

The appearance of a legislative aide from Supervisor Mahmood’s office at a staff-level ISCOTT hearing raises questions about political insulation and administrative neutrality.

Longstanding concerns include:

  • limited transparency
  • restricted communication channels
  • reliance on a single organization for outreach
  • lack of inclusive stakeholder engagement

These issues warrant pausing a renewal. The permit has been politicized, and its administrative neutrality has been jeopardized. Compounding this, there is no accessible review or appeal mechanism for a multi-year “temporary” street closure. A program of this scale should not continue without basic accountability structures.

7. Lack of Inclusive Engagement & Administrative Drift

Over the past year, there has been no meaningful dialogue between SFMTA and stakeholders directly affected by the closure. Repeated attempts to engage constructively with SFMTA upper management and the Director resulted in no follow-up, no resolution, and no clear communication pathway.

This pattern signals a drift away from inclusive, transparent administration and has produced several structural problems:

  • No scheduled stakeholder meetings
  • No outreach to directly affected merchants or residents
  • No opportunities for collaborative problem-solving
  • No feedback loop for compliance issues or safety concerns
  • Unresolved inquiries dating back to the 2023 SFMTA Board hearing
  • No documentation or reporting in response to recurring concerns

Meanwhile, the District Supervisor’s office has engaged exclusively through a single nonprofit, not the full corridor. This raises legitimate questions about who is shaping policy and whether stewardship of a public right-of-way has been delegated to a narrow set of private actors.

As one recent example of this broader pattern, staff attempted to schedule a meeting with the Director with less than 24 hours’ notice. Coordinating a meaningful conversation for a multi-stakeholder corridor requires more than last-minute outreach and underscores the absence of a reliable engagement process.

8. Accessibility Barriers for Affected Businesses

Since the return to in-person-only public comment, small businesses face significant participation barriers. Many cannot leave their storefronts during operating hours. The Shared Spaces program born in the pandemic remains in place, while pandemic-era civic-participation accommodations have been withdrawn. This creates an asymmetric burden that should be recognized as a procedural inequity.

For a program that has reshaped the economic and operational conditions of an entire corridor, the only formal venue for many operators to be heard is a two-minute public comment slot or an email submission. That is not a reasonable substitute for structured, inclusive engagement – particularly when the narrative presented by the permit holder mischaracterizes dissent as fringe or ill-intentioned. Many operators have expressed that participating in such a setting feels demoralizing, given the power imbalance and the public-relations infrastructure behind the closure. A balanced process would not require small businesses to repeatedly justify their lived experience against a curated version of “joy” presented by those unaffected by the impacts. The very stakeholders most affected by the closure have the least practical ability to participate in its renewal.

III. ECONOMIC & OPERATIONAL FAILURES

9. Economic Impact, Flawed Data & Misaligned Program Design

For five years, operators on Hayes Street have consistently reported significant harm associated with the recurring closure. While ISCOTT does not adjudicate business impacts, the SFMTA Board is the correct venue for assessing long-term policy implications.

Hayes Street is a retail-dominant corridor, and retail tenants substantially outnumber hospitality uses…yet the program has been administered around an event-style, hospitality-driven model that contradicts the corridor’s underlying economic foundation.

Despite the scale and duration of this program, there has been:

  • no economic impact analysis
  • no mitigation strategy
  • no engagement with affected operators
  • no framework for evaluating retail stability
  • no accounting for peak retail seasons or weather variability
  • no responsive action to concerns raised since 2020
  • hundreds of documented inquiries with no structured response
  • no opportunity to reconsider reopening in five years

Flawed Data:

The sales-tax analysis presented to the SFMTA Board aggregated three separate blocks, including blocks not subject to the closure, masking downturns on the affected 400 block. This undermines the reliability of analysis used to justify renewal.

Program Misalignment:

The closure has shifted Hayes Street from a retail corridor into a de facto festival environment that benefits temporary vendors and hospitality operators while harming year-round retail.

A recurring closure in a major business district cannot continue without a coherent economic framework. The absence of one is a duty-of-care failure.

10. Lack of Reassessment and Responsiveness Over Five Years

Despite hundreds of emails, comments, calls, and meeting requests since 2020, there has been:

  • no structured program review
  • no reassessment window
  • no opportunity to consider reopening
  • no operational or seasonal adjustments

The closure continued even during extended periods of inclement weather when activity dropped sharply and burdens on year-round businesses increased.Temporary programs of this scale ordinarily include annual evaluations and reconsideration of alternatives. None have occurred.

IV. EXTREME LEGAL FINDINGS WITHOUT SUPPORT

11. Unsupported Legal Finding:“No Longer Needed for Vehicular Traffic”

The current renewal relies on staff declarations that are not supported by adopted transportation policy or planning documents. Staff have asked the Board to affirm that:

  • Hayes Street is “no longer needed for vehicular traffic”; and  
  • the closure is “necessary for public safety.”

Both findings conflict with the Market & Octavia Area Plan, which designates Hayes Street as an east–west connector and a mixed-use neighborhood-serving corridor. Nothing in the plan contemplates, authorizes, or justifies a recurring multi-year street closure of this type. No collision analysis, safety review, or circulation study has been conducted to support a “public safety” claim. Likewise, no analysis has demonstrated that the corridor is no longer needed for vehicular circulation, transit function, or normal business operations. These unsupported findings represent a significant departure from adopted policy and present real risks for defensibility, transparency, and regulatory integrity.

12. Operational Contradictions: Bus Rerouting & Public Cost

Rerouting the 6-Haight/Parnassus bus increases travel time, reduces reliability, and shifts from trolley coach to motor coach — adding approximately $75,000/year in operational cost. This is a public subsidy to sustain a private weekend closure. That is not sound fiduciary management.

Request for Board Review

Given the policy, governance, and operational concerns detailed above, we respectfully request that the SFMTA Board:

  1. Deny renewal of the Hayes Street Shared Spaces permit;
  2. Restore regular public circulation on Hayes Street; and
  3. Require all future activations to follow standard Special Event permitting consistent with citywide norms.

Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to sound governance and equitable transportation policy.

Sincerely,
HVSafe

This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings, scheduling notes, and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.