update December 17, 2025
At the final MOCAC meeting, a substantive public comment questioning the prioritization of new initiatives and associated expenditures was initially omitted from the draft minutes and was only added after follow-up by community members. The episode underscores how narrowly public input can be captured — and how dependent the official record can be on after-the-fact corrections.
The concerns outlined below regarding the timing and structure of public comment during the meeting itself remain unchanged.
When Public Comment Disappears at the Finish Line
At the final meeting of the MOCAC, several members of the public showed up expecting to participate in the discussion.
They weren’t able to.
While a brief general public comment period was offered, no opportunity was provided for the public to address the committee before or during consideration of the agenda items themselves. As agenda items moved forward, multiple people attempted to speak and were shut down, creating visible frustration in the room.
This was especially concerning given that the Public Life Study a topic residents and small businesses have repeatedly sought to discuss, was taken up at the very top of the meeting. The presentation was delivered by the Supervisor’s aide, who left immediately afterward. With public comment deferred to the end of the agenda, there was no opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, or engage on the study at all. The Public Life Study carries an estimated cost of $450,000, a scale of investment that typically warrants clear public engagement and opportunity for questions.
The same dynamic applied to unresolved traffic mitigation questions, another area where public input has been consistently requested. HVS has repeatedly sought engagement from SFMTA staff, including the presenter referenced during the meeting, on key conditions and impacts in Hayes Valley. With public comment deferred, those questions once again went unanswered — underscoring how advisory committees can functionally limit, rather than facilitate, public engagement.
Adding to the frustration, while the agenda indicated three minutes per speaker, members of the public were limited to two minutes, further constraining what little opportunity to speak remained.
The meeting was run under clear time pressure, and facilitation was brisk. Whether intentional or not, the effect was the same: public participation was effectively closed at a moment when it mattered most.
Adding to the concern, this was the committee’s final meeting. There is no next meeting to correct the process — and as of now, materials and presentations referenced during the meeting have still not been posted, leaving the public without a way to review what was discussed or decided.
Advisory committees exist to bring public voice into civic decision-making. Sunsetting a committee should not mean sidelining that voice at the end.