This page documents Hayes Valley Safe’s formal correspondence to SFMTA requesting relocation of the Hayes Valley Farmers Market from the 400 block of Hayes Street. Following eighteen weeks of documented market operations and months of unanswered inquiries, the letter outlines recurring impacts on existing businesses, concerns about the market’s year-long authorization, and the need for meaningful agency action. HVS requests relocation to a more appropriate location and a substantive written response to its outstanding concerns.
October 19, 2026
Dear Director Kirschbaum and SFMTA Staff,
We are formally escalating our outstanding concerns regarding the Hayes Valley Farmers Market, operating under Temporary Street Closure Permit No. 1493851, and requesting that SFMTA discontinue its recurring operation on the 400 block of Hayes Street and pursue relocation to a more appropriate location.
This escalation follows months of unanswered correspondence, including our April 21 opposition, April 29 request to pause implementation, May 7 follow-up, and May 13 ISCOTT correspondence. The market began operating on June 6. HVS has now documented eighteen weeks of conditions affecting the surrounding commercial corridor. Beginning August 29, we expressly requested relocation through our weekly reports. A separate September 16 inquiry regarding market-issued parking passes also remains unanswered. Despite these repeated inquiries and documented concerns, SFMTA has provided no substantive written response.
An Additional Recurring Program on an Already Contested Street
The farmers market was approved despite advance concerns about cumulative impacts and an unresolved administrative complaint regarding the existing Hayes Street closure. It was introduced onto a block already operating under a recurring Shared Spaces closure, where limited sustained activity had long raised questions about the justification for closing an established commercial street every weekend. Rather than reconsidering the underlying closure, SFMTA authorized another recurring commercial program on the same block. The practical effect was to introduce additional programming on a street whose existing closure and continued justification remained in question.
Eighteen Weeks of Documented Impacts
Since June 6, HVS has documented recurring conditions involving market-related vehicles occupying customer parking and business loading areas, unattended barricades, sidewalk encroachments, overlapping commercial activity, including the recurring presence of the Signature clothing vendor, and concerns involving emergency access. These are not isolated occurrences. They reflect the operational demands of a recurring commercial event being imposed on an established commercial corridor.
More recently, Hayes Street merchants have begun leaving messages on market-related vehicles asking drivers not to occupy parking needed by their customers. Permanent businesses should not have to manage the parking and loading impacts of a City-permitted event themselves.
The impacts extend beyond parking and loading. Market tents, vendor vehicles, and associated activity can obstruct storefront visibility and signage, making existing businesses more difficult for customers to locate and access. Merchants have raised these concerns alongside the recurring loss of customer parking and loading space. These conditions affect the ability of established businesses to operate within a commercial corridor already subject to a 21-hour weekend street closure.
Beginning August 29, HVS expressly requested relocation through its weekly reports. That request has been repeated in subsequent correspondence without a substantive response. Separately, our September 16 inquiry requested clarification regarding the issuance, authorization, parking privileges, and associated fees of the market’s parking passes. Those questions remain unanswered, despite their direct relevance to the recurring curbside impacts documented throughout the market’s operation.
In his May 8 correspondence, farmers market operator Michael Peterson emphasized the market’s intention to complement existing businesses and maximize benefits for the commercial corridor as a whole. Eighteen weeks of documented operations, however, reveal a different picture: recurring impacts on customer parking, business loading, storefront visibility, and access. Rather than demonstrating clear benefits to existing merchants, the market has introduced recurring operational burdens that interfere with their ability to serve customers and conduct business. These are not occasional disruptions; they are conditions that established businesses are being left to manage week after week. Hayes Street is an established commercial corridor where businesses carry substantial fixed operating costs, including commercial rents. Their ability to remain viable depends in part on customer access, storefront visibility, and reliable loading and parking.
HVS has previously been advised by SFMTA that business financial losses and economic viability are not factors considered in these permitting decisions. That position warrants reconsideration when the City authorizes recurring commercial activity that directly affects the operating conditions of existing businesses. The issue is not whether the City must guarantee a business’s financial performance. It is whether the foreseeable and documented impacts of City-authorized street uses on existing businesses are being meaningfully considered at all.
A Year-Long Authorization Without Meaningful Reassessment
The farmers market was authorized to operate on a recurring basis for a year, without an initial trial period, despite concerns raised before implementation. This raises a fundamental question about SFMTA’s permitting practices: what meaningful mechanism exists to reassess a recurring street-use authorization when documented impacts emerge during its operation?
A temporary permit should not, in practice, become a year-long commitment insulated from reconsideration simply because it has already been approved. Eighteen weeks of documentation have reinforced the concerns raised before implementation, yet SFMTA has not explained how those impacts are being considered during the permit’s current term. This is particularly troubling where the new authorization compounds the effects of an existing, contested recurring street closure.
Relocation Must Resolve, Not Transfer, the Impacts
HVS is formally requesting that SFMTA relocate the Hayes Valley Farmers Market from the 400 block of Hayes Street to a location better suited to recurring market operations. Any alternative location must accommodate the market’s full operational requirements without transferring comparable impacts on parking, loading, access, and circulation to the surrounding Hayes Valley commercial corridor. Identifying and evaluating an appropriate location is the responsibility of the market operator and permitting agencies, not the businesses and residents experiencing the impacts.
Requested Agency Action
HVS requests that SFMTA:
1. Identify the process for modifying or terminating Permit No. 1493851 and respond to our outstanding correspondence.
2. Relocate the farmers market from the 400 block of Hayes Street to an appropriate alternative location.
We request a substantive written response within seven business days.
HVS raised concerns before the market began, documented its operations for eighteen weeks, and repeatedly requested corrective action. Continuing to submit the same observations without meaningful agency engagement is not an adequate administrative process.
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.