May 22, 2025
SFMTA, SFCTA and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood:
We write to follow up on our recent letter (below), which outlined urgent concerns about the Hayes Street closure…chief among them: ongoing noncompliance, lack of transparency, and the exclusion of the broader community from shaping its future.
We’ve learned that an event has been announced for tomorrow, Friday, May 23rd, promoting Hayes Street as a “permanent pedestrianized Entertainment Zone.” According to the notice, the event will include live music, games, and a public address from Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, framed explicitly as a show of support for pedestrianization and the reclassification of the street.
This event further underscores the concerns we’ve already raised and highlights the fact that, despite multiple requests and demands, we have yet to receive any response from your offices. Your continued silence, coupled with Supervisor Mahmood’s participation reinforces our view that he has effectively endorsed a controversial, permit-driven initiative without meaningfully engaging the broader community, particularly the small businesses and residents most directly affected. Once again, this event was coordinated solely with the permit holder and appears designed for optics. It perpetuates a false narrative of broad support while continuing to sideline those of us who have raised legitimate, well documented concerns from the start.
This closure was always intended to be temporary. Its continued existence under these conditions sets a dangerous precedent where noncompliance is rewarded, conflicts of interest go unchecked, and public space is quietly privatized under the guise of “community.” There is also a growing false impression of neighborhood consensus…one increasingly propped up by external supporters and special interest groups with ties to other controversial street initiatives across the city. But that narrative is starting to unravel. In just the past few days, we’ve been contacted by organizations that have either rescinded or are reconsidering their endorsements of a permanent closure. Why? Because the insistence on shutting down a single commercial block already flanked by ample public space and riddled with ongoing violations has begun to strike many as plainly absurd.
To be crystal clear: we are not opposed to events or public space programming when done with transparency and a community consensus. But hosting them unilaterally at the direction of one permit holder — on Hayes Street, at the direct expense of commerce is a bridge too far. There are far better, more appropriate spaces available, including Parcel K and Linden Alley, that can support activation without undermining the corridor’s economic foundation.
By turning your back on us and refusing to collaborate, you’ve shut down the possibility of a bilateral conversation … one that could have yielded a more balanced, inclusive vision for Hayes Valley. And for any public official who claims to have entered government “to serve the community and give them what they deserve,” this moment falls far short of that promise.
Supervisor Mahmood, if you choose to ignore the clear parallels unfolding in Districts 9 and 4, you risk falling into the same pattern of political miscalculation. Hayes Valley is watching. And so is the rest of San Francisco.
We ask again for immediate answers to the questions outlined in our previous letter below.
Thank you.
May 13, 2025
Attention: SFMTA, SFCTA and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
We are reaching out on behalf of Hayes Valley neighbors and small business owners with growing concern about ongoing and seemingly unilateral efforts to advance a permanent closure of Hayes Street, efforts which have lacked transparency, adequate outreach, or any substantive engagement with the very businesses whose livelihoods depend on this corridor.
We’ve recently learned of efforts, in coordination with the SFCTA, to potentially allocate Octavia Special Fund dollars (generated from Central Freeway redevelopment) toward a Hayes Street pedestrianization study. We’re aware the Supervisor’s office has expressed interest in understanding the costs and logistics of making the space more restrictive to car access, as well as the potential transit impacts, including rerouting the 6/21 bus line.
Let us be clear: these changes are happening behind closed doors, and we are being shut out of the conversation. Since Supervisor Mahmood assumed office, we have had only one brief 30-minute meeting with him about Hayes Street. Several local business owners spoke candidly about the challenges we are facing including one who is now closing her doors. The lack of follow up and concern shown at that meeting was deeply disappointing.
To compound matters, it was revealed during that meeting that the current permit holder intends to convert the closure into an “entertainment zone” –a significant shift that no local business was consulted on. This is not a shared vision; this is unilateral planning by a small group, operating with the City’s tacit approval and without public accountability.
Even more concerning is the way this closure has been misrepresented as having broad community support. In reality, nearly all communication and planning related to the project has been funneled through the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA), a group that does not reflect the full diversity of perspectives in the neighborhood. This approach has effectively sidelined many residents and small business owners, while allowing a narrow, ideologically motivated viewpoint to dominate the narrative. The SFMTA has allowed this narrative to go unchallenged, enabling the permit holder to push forward without accountability and deepening divisions within the community. What’s being presented as consensus is, in fact, a carefully curated viewpoint, one that is increasingly disconnected from the actual needs and concerns of Hayes Valley.
Proponents continue to justify the closure with event programming, but Hayes Valley already offers ample space for public activation, including Parcel K, a large, city owned, vacant lot steps from Hayes Street, long envisioned as the neighborhood’s “town square.” Why close a vital business corridor when a programmable space sits unused right next door?
The argument that this closure addresses a lack of open space simply doesn’t hold up. Within a one-mile radius are at least eight parks and playgrounds, along with underutilized spaces like Linden Alley, Buchanan Mall, Page Street, and vacant Parcels R & S. Even the Planning Department identifies alleys in the Market-Octavia area as ideal “living zones” for non-car-centric activation. Linden Alley, for example, is already a pedestrian-focused space far better suited for community events.
There are smarter, more appropriate, and far less damaging alternatives. Why aren’t we using them?
Instead, a uniquely burdensome and unsupported closure remains in place on one of San Francisco’s most active commercial corridors. To be clear: no other business corridor in the city is operating under a comparable “temporary” closure. Hayes Street is being treated as an exception without justification, and that exception is hurting small, locally owned businesses.
We are demanding transparency, inclusion, and answers to the following:
1. What is your mandate to pursue a permanent closure of Hayes Street?
The temporary permit was renewed in November 2024 with no direction from the SFMTA Board to pursue a permanent closure. Furthermore, the closure has repeatedly failed to comply with core permit conditions, grounds for immediate revocation. And yet, long-term closure planning continues behind the scenes. This calls into question the integrity of the process.
2. Was follow-up ever made with your office regarding the November 2024 traffic study?
On 11/18/24, we informed Monica Munowitch that we had heard from a contact in OSB that Supervisor Preston had introduced a traffic study concluding that a full closure of the 400 block of Hayes was not viable. We asked SFMTA to confirm this and coordinate accordingly. Was this followed up? If so, what were the findings? If not, why?
3. How can a pedestrianization study for Hayes Street be justified when it falls outside the scope of the 2023 SFCTA Octavia Improvements Study?
The 2023 SFCTA Octavia Improvements Study (June 27, 2023 Report) makes it clear: Hayes Street is not part of the Core Study Area, nor is it listed as a Secondary Corridor. Instead, the study prioritizes transit and safety improvements on Oak and Fell, projects that remain unfunded. Using Octavia Special Fund dollars for Hayes Street is a misapplication of public resources and diverts attention from areas the fund was created to serve.
We strongly oppose any attempt to use these funds for a speculative closure study that serves narrow interests while continuing to harm the local economy.
4. Why are our concerns repeatedly dismissed while one individual retains control over this public street?
We’ve raised well documented operational, legal, and economic concerns, and have received vague or dismissive responses. Meanwhile, the permit holder continues to exercise unilateral control over a public street, with no oversight or accountability. This raises serious questions of fairness, legality, and governance.
Our Position Moving Forward
We are sounding the alarm because the consequences are real. This closure has created a dangerous mix of safety issues, access limitations, and documented revenue losses exceeding $100,000 per Saturday. These are not projections they are real-time harms. Locally owned and operated small businesses are closing, and trust in the City is rapidly eroding.
A growing majority of neighbors and merchants want this closure to end. They recognize the truth: this is a flawed, exclusionary process masquerading as community benefit, while the real costs are being carried by the very businesses that give Hayes Valley its identity.
We are especially alarmed by the City’s ongoing refusal to revoke a non-compliant permit. This is not passive inaction it is a disingenuous policy maneuver that compromises the public interest and invites serious legal and ethical consequences.
To make matters worse, our once prominent business corridor has been overtaken by chalk doodling, four square ball games, and loosely programmed events that have no connection to commerce. We’ve lost sight of the street’s original purpose. Hayes Street is now being treated like a pop-up playground instead of the critical commercial artery it is meant to be. These activities belong in public parks not in the center of an active retail district where small businesses are already struggling.
The pandemic is over. It is time for Hayes Street to return to what it was designed to be: a focused, functional street for commerce not an ongoing experiment in improvised placemaking.
This is not just a disagreement over design. It reflects a broader pattern of social and economic injustice…where small, locally owned businesses are excluded from decisions that shape their future. When City leadership chooses to favor a privileged few at the expense of the broader community, it crosses the line from poor governance into institutional inequity.
We therefore expect to be included, without exception, in every communication, meeting, study, and policy discussion related to the Hayes Street closure. Any further action taken without our involvement will reflect a failure of inclusive governance, and we will be compelled to pursue all appropriate channels to ensure our voices are heard and our businesses protected.
Thank you.
HVSafe