What began as a temporary street closure in 2020 has evolved through successive permit renewals, changing operating conditions, and growing questions about public access, oversight, and neighborhood representation. This chronology documents six years of decisions, correspondence, community concerns, and proposed alternatives surrounding the Hayes Street closure. It draws on public records and contemporaneous communications to trace how the closure developed, what questions were raised along the way, and how the City responded.
Phase 1: The Emergency Program and the Initial 500-Block Challenge, 2020
The Hayes Street closure began in 2020 as an emergency-era Shared Spaces pilot covering the 300, 400, and 500 blocks. Before approval, community members raised questions about management, access, accountability, and how the pilot would be evaluated. Within weeks of its launch, affected merchants were seeking reopening of the 500 block.
July 24–27, 2020 — Questions raised before the anticipated decision
Following a July 24 town hall, community representatives wrote SFMTA and Supervisor Dean Preston’s office asking for more time to review the proposed Shared Spaces closure. The email said the community appeared to have only one business day before an anticipated decision.
The questions included:
- Who would staff and manage the closure?
- Who would bear the costs of permits, insurance, barricades, signage, and cleanup?
- Who would sign agreements and be responsible for compliance?
- How would success be measured?
- Would the City conduct a review after one week or one month?
- How would changes be considered and implemented?
- Where could the public review the application?
- How would the program operate during inclement weather?
“How is success determined? What is process to evaluate what’s working / what’s not? How are changes implemented?”
Source: July 27, 2020 correspondence to SFMTA and the Supervisor’s Office — read excerpt
Date: July 27, 2020
From: Mich — Hayes Valley Communications Chair
To: SFMTA Shared Spaces staff and Supervisor Preston’s office
Selected excerpt:
“It’s our understanding that a decision will be made tomorrow having left us one business day for the review process. For that reason we ask that you consider extending the review period so that the community can be better informed.”
August 10, 2020 — Follow-up town hall reflects divided views and unresolved operating questions
Communications Committee notes reflect questions about management, outreach, costs, safety, accessibility, and residential and business access. Participants proposed several approaches, including alleys or Slow Streets and a limited weekend test. The discussion reflected competing ideas and experimentation—not agreement on a settled, long-term closure.
Source: August 10, 2020 follow-up town hall Communications Committee notes.
August 30, 2020 — Three-block Shared Spaces closure begins
HVS’s historical record places the beginning of the recurring closure on August 30 and describes a Franklin-to-Laguna footprint. The schedule was Friday from 4–10 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m.–10 p.m., with cross-traffic permitted at Gough. A portion of Octavia between Hayes and Ivy was also included.
Source: HVS: 500 Hayes Street history.
September 22, 2020 — Merchants request reopening; Supervisor’s Office identifies a six-week review
After what merchants described as seven operating days, a 500-block business asked Supervisor Preston’s office to reopen that block while continuing the closure on the 300 and 400 blocks. The email described the 500 block as predominantly retail, reported weekend-sales declines of up to 25% for some businesses, and raised concerns about limited foot traffic and access for customers, including older customers.
Legislative aide Kyle Smeallie responded that the Supervisor’s Office had placed a six-week review condition in its approval letter to SFMTA and offered a September 28 meeting to discuss possible changes:
“In our letter to the SFMTA indicating our approval of the pilot, we stipulated a 6-week review period, in order to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and to revisit concerns raised previously.”
Source: September 22, 2020 merchant correspondence with Supervisor Preston’s office — read excerpts
Date: September 22, 2020, 12:51 p.m.
From: Ramiz — Nabila’s Naturals
To: Supervisor Preston’s office and neighborhood participants
Selected excerpt:
“Now that we’ve had 7 days to test the current program schedule we are making an appeal to your office to re-open the 500 block of Hayes and limit the closure to the 300 and 400 block of Hayes St.”
Date: September 22, 2020, 1:17 p.m.
From: Kyle Smeallie — Legislative Aide,
Supervisor Dean Preston’s Office
To: Ramiz, in the same correspondence thread
Selected excerpts:
“As a result, in our letter to the SFMTA indicating our approval of the pilot, we stipulated a 6-week review period, in order to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and to revisit concerns raised previously.”
“The bottom line for us is that we want to do what we can to make this work for as many merchants and neighbors as possible. If there are changes to the proposal, we are certainly open to hearing them.”
September 28–November 10, 2020 — Merchants pursue removal of the 500 block
Following a September 28 merchant check-in, five longstanding Hayes Street-facing businesses sought further review of the closure’s effects. By October 26, merchants and community participants reported approximately 80 submissions and requested a meeting aimed at reopening the 500 block on November 1. Their concerns included retail and delivery access, holiday and winter operations, reported business effects, and whether activity could be concentrated on blocks better suited to the program.
In subsequent correspondence concerning SFMTA Case No. 247991, SFMTA’s Temporary Street Closures manager directed requests to remove or modify the 500-block closure to Supervisor Preston, the Mayor’s Office, and Shared Spaces leadership. When HVS requested the filed application, SFMTA described it as an online form and stated that obtaining additional information would require a public-records request.
Sources: September 28–November 10, 2020 merchant, community, and SFMTA Case No. 247991 correspondence; HVS: 500 Hayes Street history.
November 16–19, 2020 — Modified hours announced; claimed merchant agreement disputed
Before a November town hall, HVS proposed keeping the 500 block open through the holiday and winter period and reconvening before the next program phase. HVS reported 105 submissions, with 88% supporting reopening of the block.
On November 19, an HVNA email announced that the 500 blocks of Hayes and Octavia would instead operate from 5–10 p.m., Friday through Sunday, beginning November 27. The email stated:
“We have communicated this recommended change to SFMTA, and they have approved it.”
Affected merchants immediately disputed whether the person identified as their spokesperson had authority to agree on their behalf. Although the modified hours were announced as SFMTA-approved, the correspondence does not establish that affected merchants had reached consensus.
Sources: HVS: 500 Hayes Street history; HVNA modified-hours email; contemporaneous merchant correspondence.
December 4–17, 2020 — Signage remains inconsistent as an extension is considered
HVS notified SFMTA that posted no-parking restrictions did not match the modified 5 p.m. starting time. SFMTA acknowledged that it had maintained the original signs even though they did not reflect the trial hours and directed operating concerns to the permit holder and Supervisor’s Office. As an extension using the original hours was considered, a 500-block business owner submitted public comment supporting an extension only if the 500 block were removed.
“We maintained the normal signage even though it does not reflect the hours of the trial closure…”
Sources: December 4–17, 2020 SFMTA and merchant correspondence.
The 500 block remained in the permit as 2021 began, despite merchants’ requests to reopen it.
What the community sought
Residents and merchants asked for clear management responsibilities, meaningful review of the pilot, and a process for changing what was not working. On the 500 block, they proposed reopening the street—including during the holiday and winter period—to compare business conditions, while concentrating closure activity on better-suited blocks.
Phase 2: The 2021 Renewal and Restoration of the 500 Block
As 2021 began, the 500 block remained authorized for closure despite reduced and inconsistent operation. Merchants continued seeking its formal removal rather than relying on the permit holder’s discretion. In July, a revised permit finally restored the block to ordinary street operation.
March 17–May 13, 2021 — HVSBA asks how the renewed permit could be modified
HVSBA asked SFMTA how the 500 block could be formally removed from the renewed closure permit. SFMTA explained that the renewal contained no substantive changes, although the permit holder had voluntarily reduced its hours and recently stopped closing the block on Sundays.
SFMTA said permit holders could operate for fewer hours than authorized, but that did not remove the block from the permit. Under the emergency regulations, town halls and hearings were not required; community requests for modifications were directed through the district supervisor.
Sources: March 17–May 13, 2021 HVSBA and SFMTA correspondence.
May–June 2021 — Merchants request a hold, but renewal proceeds
After a new renewal notice appeared, HVSBA asked how comments would affect the decision, who was reviewing the application, and what hearing or review opportunity would occur. SFMTA said applications were generally approved within ten business days and clarified that the notice’s reference to a “hearing facilitator” was an outdated template error: there would be no hearing.
HVSBA asked SFMTA to wait while review continued with Supervisor Preston’s office. SFMTA said it would not issue the permit until that office gave its okay.
On June 15, HVSBA met with Supervisor Preston and legislative aide Kyle Smeallie to discuss the renewal and request removal of the 500 block. The permit was issued later that same day, before HVSBA received a response from the Supervisor’s Office concerning the requested modification. On June 24, SFMTA explained that it had issued the renewal because the Supervisor’s Office had raised no objection.
Sources: May 25–June 24, 2021 HVSBA and SFMTA correspondence.
July 2021 — Revised permit restores the 500 block to ordinary street operation
SFMTA explained that an existing permit could be narrowed at the request of a City unit without the new public posting required to add blocks or hours. SFMTA described its role as reviewing transportation impacts and coordinating permits, while directing community concerns to the Supervisor’s Office and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.
On July 13, SFMTA transmitted Permit 373513, issued June 15 and revised July 2. The revised permit authorized Hayes Street between Gough and Franklin through September 5, 2021 and Hayes Street between Gough and Octavia through December 31, 2021. The new footprint removed Hayes Street between Octavia and Laguna—and the related short Octavia closure—from the recurring authorization.
Supervisor Preston’s office said it had worked with SFMTA staff “to figure out a path forward,” resulting in the revised permit, and explained:
“We recognize that having the decision on whether to open the block be at the discretion of HVNA has created uncertainty and tension…”
The office therefore required at least two weeks’ advance notice and its written approval before another permit could be issued for the block. It described the purpose of that safeguard in constructive terms:
“Our goal is to make sure we have engaged with you all (as well as permittees) before any future permit is issued.”
The recurring closure continued on the 300 and 400 blocks.
Read the correspondence — July 13, 2021
Date: July 13, 2021, 10:47 a.m.
From: Kyle Smeallie — Supervisor Dean Preston’s Office
To: Mich
Cc: Merchant and HVSBA recipients
Selected excerpt:
“I wanted to follow up on the conversations around the 500 block closure. Our office has been engaged with SFMTA staff to figure out a path forward, the result of which is the revised permit issued below.
We recognize that having the decision on whether to open the block be at the discretion of HVNA has created uncertainty and tension, and therefore we have requested the following conditions: a permit for closure of that block will not be issued without at least two weeks’ advance notice and written approval for issuance from our (Supervisor Preston’s) office.
Our goal is to make sure we have engaged with you all (as well as permittees) before any future permit is issued.”
Sources: July 2–13, 2021 HVSBA, SFMTA, and Supervisor Preston’s Office correspondence; Revised Temporary Street Closure Permit 373513; HVS: 500 Hayes Street history.
What the community sought
Merchants sought formal removal of the 500 block from the closure permit, rather than relying on the permit holder’s discretion. They also asked for clarity about how public comments affected renewal and for time to resolve their concerns before another permit was issued.
Phase 3: The 300-Block Renewal and Restoration, 2021–2022
After the 500 block reopened in July 2021, the recurring closure continued on the 300 and 400 blocks. Before the next renewal, SFMTA staff questioned whether the 300-block closure was still needed. Both blocks were nevertheless renewed in January 2022; the 300 block returned to ordinary street operation under the following permit, effective July 1.
December 22–23, 2021 — SFMTA questions whether the 300-block closure is still needed
Internal SFMTA correspondence questioned whether the 300-block closure was still needed, noting that merchants had not used the roadway for tables and chairs for many months. Staff also considered the anticipated return and possible rerouting of the 21-Hayes bus.
HVNA’s president said she had previously been told the block could no longer be permitted because of its importance to freeway traffic flow. HVNA nevertheless sought to retain it, arguing that closing only the 400 block created traffic problems at Hayes and Gough. SFMTA leadership requested further discussion, and its Chief of Staff subsequently stated that the agency was committed to rerouting the 21-Hayes to accommodate the closure.
Source: December 22–23, 2021 internal SFMTA correspondence.
January 2022 — Both blocks are renewed despite questions about the 300 block
On January 7, SFMTA renewed the closure of the 300 and 400 blocks through June 26, 2022. On January 25, HVS published concerns from 300-block businesses seeking reopening. Merchants cited limited use of the closed roadway, interference with customer access, loading and parking, and the lack of disclosed metrics supporting continuation. They also pointed to existing parklets as an alternative to closing the street.
Sources: Permit 496953, issued January 7, 2022; HVS: Shared Street Closure Permit Renewal — 300 Block of Hayes, January 25, 2022.
May–July 2022 — The 300 block reopens; the closure continues on the 400 block
The next renewal proposal excluded the 300 block. On June 27, SFMTA issued Permit 575464 to Hayes Valley Merchant Association, authorizing closure only of the 400 block beginning July 1. The 300 block returned to ordinary street operation, while Friday-through-Sunday closures continued between Gough and Octavia.
Sources: May–June 2022 SFMTA renewal notices and correspondence; Permit 575464, issued June 27, 2022.
What the community sought
300-block merchants sought reopening of a roadway they said was seeing little use during closures, while preserving outdoor dining through existing parklets. They asked how customer access, loading, parking, and traffic impacts were being weighed—and what evidence justified continuing the closure.
Phase 4: Roadway Shared Spaces Review and the 2023 Board Decision
In 2023, the closure’s future centered on the remaining 400 block. Emergency-access concerns and neighborhood complaints led SFMTA to announce its end, but political intervention kept it operating. Staff subsequently recommended a Saturday-only closure; the Board approved Friday and Saturday and directed a study of possible permanent closure.
February–March 2023 — HVNA seeks continuation under Roadway Shared Spaces
HVNA applied to continue the three-day closure of the 400 block under the Roadway Shared Spaces program. ISCOTT considered the proposal on March 23. SFMTA later determined that rerouting the 21-Hayes placed the closure beyond ISCOTT’s delegated approval authority and required a decision by the SFMTA Board.
Source: SFMTA Board Item 10.5 staff report, November 7, 2023, pp. 1 and 3–4.
April–May 2023 — Closure continues while the application remains pending
After the prior permit expired March 31, HVS questioned new signs showing an April–October closure term. SFMTA said applicants could continue operating with temporary signs during Roadway Shared Spaces review, but clarified that the signs did not constitute approval and would be removed if the application were denied.
Source: April–May 2023 HVS/SFMTA renewal correspondence.
July 2023 — SFMTA announces an end to the closure; political intervention reverses course
Because of continuing emergency-access issues raised by the Fire Department and complaints from neighbors, SFMTA told the permit holder/HVNA on July 19 that it could not proceed with the pending application and that the closure would cease at the end of July. SFMTA noted that the prior permit had expired in March and said any future application would need to address those concerns—potentially by reducing the closure’s frequency or scope—and include broader outreach and a plan for commercial loading.
Read SFMTA’s explanation — July 19, 2023
Date: July 19, 2023
From: Monica Munowitch, SFMTA
To: Lloyd Silverstein
Cc: Jennifer Laska and SFMTA staff
Selected excerpt:
“We have had conversations with SFFD and due the continued emergency access issues, as well as some complaints we’ve received from your neighbors regarding the street being closed, we are unable to proceed with your application at this time.”
Source: SFMTA correspondence, “Shared Spaces HVNA Street Closure: Next Steps,” July 19, 2023; obtained through a public-records request.
City officials then stepped in to “save the permit.” By July 26, Supervisor Dean Preston’s office thanked SFMTA leadership for working with it on a “temporary extension,” while SFMTA staff thanked Preston’s and Mayor London Breed’s teams for creating an opportunity to hear from stakeholders and determine next steps.
“For now, Hayes Street will continue to operate closed to traffic on weekends as it has since the pandemic while we determine our long-term plans. To discuss the future of weekend closure on Hayes, we’re convening stakeholders, including the merchants, SFMTA, & Fire Department.”
— Mayor London Breed, July 25, 2023
The announced July 31 end date did not take effect. The closure continued while the City considered revised operating conditions.
Sources: SFMTA, “Shared Spaces HVNA Street Closure: Next Steps,” July 19–23, 2023; interagency correspondence concerning Supervisor Preston’s letter, July 26–27, 2023; Mayor London Breed’s July 25, 2023 public statement; FairSF contemporaneous account.
July–September 2023 — A reduced closure takes shape; community input remains disputed
Following the temporary continuation, City agencies convened stakeholder discussions and developed revised operating conditions. On September 2, SFMTA said Friday rerouting of the 21-Hayes could no longer be offered and recommended a Saturday and/or Sunday closure of no more than eight hours. It sought an activation plan, updated site plan, improved emergency access, staffed barricades, and loading measures.
HVS and participating businesses questioned the timetable and how community preferences were being gathered, including the framing and geographic scope of a survey circulated by merchant and neighborhood organizations. HVS also challenged a petition presenting continuation or termination as the choice when a modified schedule was under consideration.
Sources: July–September 2023 City and stakeholder correspondence; HVS permit updates archive.
October 10, 2023 — SFMTA recommends Saturday-only operation
SFMTA recommended reducing the requested three-day closure to Saturday from 1–10 p.m. It cited merchant-access concerns, emergency-access limitations, impacts on the 21-Hayes, limited programming, inconsistent barricades and monitoring, and nearby congestion.
The agency reported that merchant outreach found 16% preferred the full-weekend closure, 11% preferred no closure, and 66% preferred or were satisfied with the proposed Saturday-only option.
Source: SFMTA: “What’s Next for the Hayes Street Weekend Street Closure,” October 10, 2023.
October 17, 2023 — Director Yekutiel moves to add Friday and study a permanent closure
SFMTA staff recommended Saturday-only operation. Director Manny Yekutiel moved to add Friday evening and direct staff to study the cost and potential design of a permanent, 24/7 closure, with a report back within six months.
The Board adopted those amendments and continued the final approval decision to November 7.
Sources: October 17, 2023 SFMTA Board meeting record; November 7, 2023 Item 10.5 staff report and Resolution 231107-090.
November 7–17, 2023 — The Board approves a two-day closure and SFMTA issues the permit
The Board approved Friday closures from 4–10 p.m. and Saturday closures from 1–10 p.m., authorizing operation from November 10, 2023 through October 19, 2024. The approval required regular programming, improved barricades, intersection monitors, wayfinding, and additional loading spaces, alongside the six-month report-back on possible permanent closure.
SFMTA issued the renewed permit on November 16. The accompanying staff report stated that the Office of Economic and Workforce Development paid the applicant’s $2,100 application fee.
Sources: SFMTA Board Item 10.5 staff report and Resolution 231107-090, adopted November 7, 2023; November 15–17, 2023 SFMTA correspondence transmitting the renewed permit.
November 8–20, 2023 — SFMTA clarifies the scope of the six-month review
Immediately after the Board vote, HVS asked how the permanent-closure study would be conducted. SFMTA initially said the work had not been scoped. On November 20, it clarified that the six-month report-back would cover observations from Friday-and-Saturday operations and outline a possible future process—not present a permanent-closure proposal.
Source: November 8–20, 2023 correspondence among HVS, SFMTA, and the Mayor’s Office.
What the community sought
Residents and merchants sought reliable emergency access, loading, staffing, and enforcement, with closure hours tied to actual programming. They questioned how surveys and petitions represented their preferences and asked for meaningful participation in decisions about the closure’s continuation and any move toward permanence.
Phase 5: The Delayed Report-Back and 2024 Renewal
The November 2023 approval required a report-back within six months. That review was delayed at HVNA’s request while it worked on programming. As renewal approached in 2024, HVNA sought a three-day closure, while HVS pressed for answers, meaningful participation, and a winter reopening to collect comparative data.
May 8, 2024 — The six-month report-back is delayed
On May 8, HVS reported that the Board-directed report-back would move from spring to fall at HVNA/permit holder’s request while it worked on activation and programming. SFMTA stated:
“We recently made the decision to delay the MTA Board 6 month report back regarding pedestrianizing the block of Hayes, which was supposed to be now/this Spring, until Fall.”
Source: HVS permit update, May 8, 2024.
June–August 2, 2024 — HVS seeks answers before renewal
On August 2, HVS followed up on questions raised June 12 about staffing, weather-related operations, reported permit violations, and emergency access. It also sought the study’s scope, confirmation of the permit holders, and an explanation of how the pedestrianization petition, endorsements, and Andrew Seigner’s overlapping roles would affect the process. With the permit approaching expiration, HVS asked:
“What will be the basis/justification of the closure continuing or being discontinued?”
HVS raised these questions before renewal; they resurfaced in October as the hearing approached.
Source: August 2, 2024 HVS correspondence to SFMTA, following up on June correspondence; “Re: Hayes St Closure” email thread.
July 30–August 8, 2024 — HVNA outlines expansion plans and applies
In a July 30 slide deck prepared for SFMTA, HVNA/permit holder outlined its renewal plans. It submitted the application on August 8 seeking Friday evening and all-day Saturday and Sunday closures. The application described gatherings of up to approximately 1,000 attendees and a proposed layout with as many as 59 vendor booths.
Sources: HVNA/Hayes Promenade slide deck dated July 30, 2024, prepared for SFMTA; August 2024 Roadway Shared Spaces application and written description; October 4, 2024 SFMTA correspondence.
September 16–October 1, 2024 — MOCAC resolution urging SFMTA to pedestrianize the 400 block of Hayes Street
Andrew Seigner presented his pedestrianization proposal to MOCAC in June and authored the resolution adopted September 16, calling for pedestrianization and a temporary 24/7 pilot. HVS’s October 1 letter to SFMTA and SF Planning challenged the lack of broader community notice and demonstrated need, raised potential conflicts involving Seigner’s overlapping roles, and questioned the proposal’s consistency with the Market and Octavia Plan’s approach to Hayes Street as a two-way neighborhood commercial street.
Sources: Seigner’s June 17, 2024 presentation; MOCAC resolution, September 16, 2024; HVS letter to SF Planning and SFMTA, October 1, 2024; Seigner’s March 20, 2025 email confirming authorship of the resolution.
October 2, 2024 — HVS requests postponement and a winter reopening
HVS asked SFMTA to postpone the October ISCOTT hearing, explaining that it had sought participation throughout the permit term but repeatedly had to pursue the agency for information. The letter stated:
“We have not been regarded as an equal partner while the permit holder/HVNA is in the public domain running the dialogue and narrative (something which we’ve consistently pointed out). This can not be a one way street where process is dictated by the permit holder.”
HVS traced its efforts to obtain information: a September 10 inquiry, a reply on September 25 after another follow-up, and application details provided September 30. With the October 10 hearing approaching, it argued that less than ten days to prepare was insufficient while its August 2 questions about compliance, overlapping roles, the petition, and endorsements remained unresolved. HVS asked for a defined process in which it could participate on equal terms, noting that HVNA had previously been afforded a six-month report-back delay.
The letter also offered a practical alternative. With merchants entering the holiday season and winter approaching, HVS proposed individual permits for scheduled events through year-end, ordinary street operation between those events, and reconsideration of the recurring permit in January. It explained that reopening would provide:
“an opportunity to collect and compare data with the street open (a condition we have not been allowed to explore since the start of the temporary street closure during the pandemic).”
HVS also requested a broader discussion about event programming and use of other neighborhood spaces, pointing to Parcel K as an alternative.
Source: October 2, 2024 HVS correspondence to SFMTA.
October 4–6, 2024 — HVS’s requests for dialogue and a pause remain unaddressed
HVS had asked for time to address outstanding concerns, a meaningful role before renewal, and consideration of winter reopening to collect comparative data. Monica Munowitch’s October 4 reply explained how applications reached ISCOTT and confirmed HVNA’s August 8 submission date. It did not address those requests or the proposed alternative.
On October 6, HVS challenged the adequacy of that response, asking what “staff process” meant and whether SFMTA intended to answer its outstanding questions. It wrote:
“Sending this matter to a hearing with no opportunity for dialogue at the community level (to have our questions and concerns addressed) is simply unjust.”
Source: October 4 and October 6, 2024 HVS/SFMTA correspondence, “Re: Hayes St Closure” email thread.
October 7–9, 2024 — SFMTA points to public comment; HVS continues seeking dialogue before expansion
On October 7, Monica Munowitch responded that she did not have much to add and described public comment at ISCOTT and the Board as the principal outreach process. The reply did not offer the community discussion or additional preparation time HVS had requested for the pending application.
HVS also questioned the Sunday expansion without prior community dialogue or resolution of its earlier concerns, and continued seeking more time and inclusion of its correspondence in the hearing record.
Source: October 7–9, 2024 correspondence between SFMTA and HVS.
October 10, 2024 — ISCOTT extends the existing schedule and refers the expansion request
ISCOTT extended the existing Friday-and-Saturday closure through November 30 and recommended sending HVNA’s three-day proposal to the SFMTA Board. The hearing proceeded despite HVS’s postponement request and its objection that the community dialogue it had sought had not occurred. HVS had asked that a permit be denied until neighborhood members and small business operators were included in the dialogue and decision-making.
Sources: ISCOTT Agenda and Minutes No. 1579, October 10, 2024; HVS communication to ISCOTT and SFMTA, October 9, 2024.
October 23–November 14, 2024 — HVS asks what justifies renewal; SFMTA proposes a compromise
As the November 19 Board hearing approached, HVS again requested a pause and asked what justified renewal. SFMTA said compliance problems had been referred to HVNA for correction and would be reported to the Board. Separately, it said it could not vouch for HVNA’s petition or survey and directed requests for delay or denial to public comment.
On November 12, HVS specifically called for a moratorium on renewal so incoming City leadership could hear its concerns before another term was approved. It described an erosion of trust and a lack of representation under the outgoing supervisor, and sought an opportunity to revisit business impacts and the handling of the closure with new leadership. Later that afternoon, Monica Munowitch said staff would recommend a compromise because the community remained divided; her reply did not address the request to defer renewal for incoming leadership.
Source: October 23–November 14, 2024 correspondence between SFMTA and HVS.
November 19–22, 2024 — The Board retains Friday, lengthens Saturday, and declines routine Sunday operation
SFMTA recommended renewal while acknowledging continuing problems with intersection staffing, emergency access, congestion, and the 21-Hayes reroute. Staff also reported improved activation and barricade placement.
The Board approved Friday closures from 4–10 p.m. and Saturday closures from 10 a.m.–10 p.m. for November 22, 2024 through November 22, 2025, under Resolution 241119-130.
The decision extended Saturday hours from a 1 p.m. start to 10 a.m. despite the continuing operational concerns. The Board declined routine Sunday operation and called for annual limits on vendor-market events. SFMTA transmitted Permit 1091787 to HVNA/permit holder on November 21, effective November 22.
Sources: November 19, 2024 SFMTA Board presentation and Resolution 241119-130; November 21 permit-transmittal email; Permit 1091787.
November–December 2024 — Questions continue after permit issuance
After approval, HVS continued asking about enforcement, vendor-market coordination, and economic information.
On December 19, Monica Munowitch said no robust financial analysis was required for this type of permit and that compliance concerns would be brought to the permit holder. She also stated:
“We are not staffed as a program to inspect our closures regularly…”
She said her understanding was that ISCOTT had no formal appeal process of the kind HVS described and directed complaints to the SFMTA Board.
Source: November–December 2024 HVS/SFMTA correspondence, including November 21 and December 19 responses, “Re: Hayes St Closure” email thread.
What the community sought
HVS sought answers to outstanding compliance and governance questions and meaningful dialogue before renewal. It proposed reopening Hayes Street during winter, permitting scheduled events individually, and collecting comparative data with the street open. It also requested a moratorium on renewal so incoming City leadership could review unresolved concerns before another term was approved.
Phase 6: The 2025 Compliance Record and Renewal of the Closure
In 2025, HVS continued seeking enforcement and reconsideration of the closure while struggling to secure substantive engagement with newly elected Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. Requests for answers and a moratorium preceded another renewal—and a legal demand directed at HVS’s documentation three days after the Board’s approval.
January–March 2025 — HVS continues seeking enforcement review
HVS asked SFMTA to address recurring-vendor activity, a Rivian activation, merchant-coordination requirements, reported permit violations, and the procedure for revocation. HVS also followed up on questions it said had remained unanswered since January.
On March 27, SFMTA stated that HVS’s documentation would be saved for the decision-making bodies when a future application was processed. SFMTA also said that it had not convened meetings concerning the closure and acknowledged that the Hayes Valley Merchants Council did not represent every neighborhood merchant.
The collected correspondence does not contain a consolidated agency disposition of the enforcement and revocation questions raised during this period.
Read SFMTA’s response — March 27, 2025
Date: March 27, 2025
From: Monica Munowitch, SFMTA
To: Richard and the HV Safe Team
Selected excerpts:
“We appreciate your documentation of the street closure. We continue to save all these files to provide to the bodies at the time they’re making a decision, which would be upon processing a street closure application.”
“We recognize HVMC does not represent the whole merchant community and intentionally added language to reference the neighborhood merchants to be broad and inclusive so everyone, including but not limited to HVS and HVSBA, could provide input to the permit holder.”
Source: March 2025 HVS/SFMTA correspondence.
March 14, 2025 — HVS raises questions about the proposed Entertainment Zone
HVS reported learning that an Entertainment Zone was being pursued in Hayes Valley and asked how that proposal related to the recurring closure, neighborhood businesses, and the broader governance of the corridor.
Source: HVS permit-update page.
January–May 2025 — Brief meetings and repeated attempts to get discussions back on track
HVS and HVSBA began requesting meetings with Mahmood’s office in January. HVS later recorded that Mahmood spent approximately ten minutes at its February 27 meeting, with the remaining discussion conducted with aide Raynell Cooper. HVSBA’s separate March 14 meeting covered Hayes Street and other neighborhood issues; in a March 18 follow-up, the group said the meeting had been cut short and only a third of its prepared points had been discussed. HVS’s published account also recalls Mahmood arriving late to the March meeting.
The groups repeatedly sought follow-up time with the Supervisor and a regular meeting schedule. Cooper offered staff meetings and cited Mahmood’s limited availability; HVS and HVSBA explained that they needed to finish the discussions with Mahmood himself. In April, HVSBA wrote that it had been waiting more than three weeks to arrange a follow-up. May correspondence still sought confirmation of time with the Supervisor. HVS later reported that no regular meeting cadence had been established.
Sources: HVS meeting-request correspondence; HVSBA meeting-request correspondence; HVS retrospective accounts, “A Record of Non-Engagement” and “Hayes Street Closure — Pulse”.
May 13–28, 2025 — HVS seeks written answers as study and Entertainment Zone plans advance
HVS wrote to SFMTA, SFCTA, and Mahmood questioning the basis for a pedestrianization study, proposed use of Octavia funds, and the handling of compliance and business concerns. On May 22, it followed up after learning of a May 23 Hayes Street event featuring Mahmood and promoting pedestrianization and an Entertainment Zone. HVS contrasted that public promotion with its difficulty obtaining substantive discussion and answers.
On May 28, HVS again requested written responses before confirming another meeting. Mahmood replied that he was happy to meet the following month, while objecting to disparagement of his staff and insinuations about their integrity. His reply did not answer the substantive study, funding, and governance questions raised in that exchange.
Sources: HVS May 13 and May 22 communications; May 28 HVS/Mahmood correspondence, “Immediate Action and Inclusion Demanded on Hayes Street Closure.”
July 7, 2025 — HVS requests an immediate moratorium
HVS asked SFMTA to place an immediate moratorium on activity under the closure permit. The request cited approximately 30 weeks of reported compliance concerns, unattended barricades, unauthorized or insufficiently coordinated events, vendor-market activity, economic effects, and questions concerning administration of the permit.
HVS proposed redirecting programming to Linden Living Alley and requested a written response.
Source: July 7 HVS correspondence to SFMTA.
July 21–22, 2025 — SFMTA preserves the correspondence for a future Board decision
SFMTA responded that HVS’s correspondence would be saved and provided to the SFMTA Board if another application came forward. The agency stated that the existing permit authorized Friday and Saturday closures through November 22, 2025.
HVS replied that the response did not resolve its enforcement, governance, economic, and moratorium requests.
Source: July 21–22 HVS/SFMTA correspondence.
August 2025 — HVNA applies for another three-day recurring closure
HVNA applied to renew the Friday-and-Saturday closure and add Sundays for the November 2025–November 2026 permit term.
Source: SFMTA Board Item 14 staff report, November 18, 2025.
August–October 2025 — HVS continues documenting operation of the closure
HVS continued publishing weekly observations and submitting concerns involving barricades, vehicles, vendors, event setups, staffing, and enforcement. Those reports formed part of the record HVS asked SFMTA to consider before renewal.
Sources: HVS Compliance & Violations archive; HVS/SFMTA correspondence collection.
October 23, 2025 — ISCOTT removes Sunday and refers Friday and Saturday to the Board
The ISCOTT agenda described the applicant’s request for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday operation. The committee’s final recommendation omitted Sunday and referred only Friday and Saturday to the SFMTA Board by a 6–0 vote.
The meeting record documented that:
- the Fire Department representative emphasized that barricades must be staffed at all times;
- the applicant acknowledged intermittent or inconsistent monitors during lightly programmed periods and committed to improvement; and
- the chair removed Sunday from the recommendation because of continuing activation and compliance concerns.
Sources: ISCOTT Agenda and Minutes No. 1603, October 23, 2025.
November 14, 2025 — HVS challenges the economic evidence
Before the renewal vote, HVS questioned SFMTA’s use of sales-tax figures combining the closed 400 block with the open 300 and 500 blocks. HVS argued that the combined figures did not establish how the closure affected businesses on the 400 block.
Source: HVS sales-tax analysis.
November 17, 2025 — HVS submits policy and governance considerations to the Board
HVS submitted a written statement addressing the renewal request, compliance and enforcement, public participation, economic claims, overlapping event activity, governance, and the findings it believed the Board should require before acting.
Source: Hayes Street Shared Spaces Permit — Policy and Governance Considerations for Board Review.
November 18, 2025 — SFMTA staff reports improvements and continuing operational concerns
SFMTA reported improvements in Saturday programming and barricade placement but acknowledged continuing problems with emergency access, staffing, vendors, Friday programming, and the 6-Hayes reroute. Staff also acknowledged that the three-block sales-tax figures could not establish the closure’s economic effects without a focused study.
Source: SFMTA Board Item 14 staff report, November 18, 2025.
November 18, 2025 — The Board renews the two-day closure
The Board approved Friday closures from 4–10 p.m. and Saturday closures from 10 a.m.–10 p.m. for November 28, 2025 through November 28, 2026, without the requested Sunday expansion. SFMTA issued Permit 1316522 to Andrew Seigner of HVNA that same day.
The permit retained requirements for staffed barricades, clear intersections, escorted vehicle access, and merchant coordination for market and retail-vendor events. Changes required written submission to SFMTA, and violations could be grounds for immediate revocation—provisions relevant to HVS’s continuing enforcement and oversight questions.
On November 26, HVS published a comparison highlighting the new permit’s emergency-access, staffing, parking-control, and site-plan requirements.
Sources: SFMTA Board Resolution 251118-110 and Shared Spaces Roadway Closure Permit 1316522, November 18, 2025.
November 21, 2025 — A legal demand follows the renewal
Three days after the Board approved renewal, counsel for Andrew Seigner sent a cease-and-desist letter seeking restrictions on HVS’s documentation and publication concerning his role in operating the closure. HVS responded that same day, denying the allegations and explaining that its website documented closure conditions using contributions from multiple neighbors and publicly available SFMTA permit information.
Read HVS’s response — November 21, 2025
Date: November 21, 2025
From: Hayes Valley Safe (HVS)
To: Counsel for Andrew Seigner
Subject: Response to Your November 21 Correspondence
Selected excerpts:
“HVS denies the allegations described in your correspondence.”
“HVS maintains a public website that documents conditions related to the Hayes Street closure as part of our community work. As stated clearly on the page, the images and observations posted there reflect submissions from multiple neighbors and contributors, not solely any one individual.”
“Any permit information referenced or reposted on our site was taken directly from publicly available SFMTA materials, which list the responsible operator and organizational mailing address in accordance with City requirements.”
Source: HVS email, “Response to Your November 21 Correspondence,” November 21, 2025. Selected passages; intervening text omitted.
Sources: November 21, 2025 cease-and-desist letter from counsel for Andrew Seigner; HVS’s November 21, 2025 email, “Response to Your November 21 Correspondence.”
November 2025 — Declining participation in the renewal process
By the 2025 renewal, some longtime opponents of the closure had stopped attending SFMTA Board hearings. After years of submitting objections and seeking answers, residents and merchants expressed growing frustration with repeated approvals and the lack of substantive engagement. The smaller number of speakers did not necessarily reflect diminished opposition. The cease-and-desist demand that followed the November 2025 renewal added another troubling dimension to an already prolonged effort to participate in the City’s decision-making process.
November–December 2025 — HVS questions the basis for renewal
After renewal, HVS asked how its compliance reports had informed the decision. SFMTA said HVS’s emails had been saved and summarized in the Board presentation, but that response did not explain what action had been taken on the reported compliance concerns.
Source: November 19–December 12, 2025 HVS/SFMTA correspondence.
What the community sought
HVS sought enforcement of existing permit conditions, a clear response to its moratorium and revocation requests, and substantive engagement with the Supervisor before another renewal. It opposed Sunday expansion, requested focused economic analysis and clearer merchant coordination, and asked how its documented compliance concerns had affected the decision.
Phase 7: The Administrative Complaint, Overlapping Uses, and Renewal, 2026–Present
During 2026, HVS sought answers about enforcement, challenged additional recurring uses of Hayes Street, and questioned how the Public Life Study would inform another renewal. Alongside those efforts, community members faced civil harassment proceedings connected to their documentation of the closure.
Early 2026 — Continuing the work under the cloud of court proceedings
HVS entered 2026 continuing to document the renewed Hayes Street closure and raise ongoing enforcement concerns, now under the cloud of civil harassment proceedings that followed the November cease-and-desist demand. The closure had been renewed; what remained contested was how it operated and whether its conditions were being enforced. Yet HVS was now defending its documentation of those conditions while continuing to seek agency action.
HVS described the proceedings as creating stress, uncertainty, and a chilling effect on participation. The underlying concerns had not gone away: residents and merchants still needed a workable way to raise questions and report conditions without further escalation.
Sources: HVS statement on civic documentation and the court proceedings; HVS/SFMTA operator visibility and engagement correspondence.
April 2, 2026 — The civil harassment petition is denied
HVS reported that the civil harassment petition connected to documentation of the Hayes Street closure was denied on April 2. It subsequently raised the experience with City agencies as a concern about civic participation and the suitability of public-facing neighborhood intermediaries.
Source: HVS statement and April 4 court-outcome update.
April 10, 2026 — HVS files a formal administrative complaint
HVS submitted a formal administrative complaint to SFMTA leadership concerning Permit 1316522, citing approximately 70 weeks of reported noncompliance, unresolved enforcement and revocation questions, exclusion from substantive engagement, and uncertainty about the study’s scope and consideration of reopening. HVS requested immediate initiation of revocation and a written response within seven days.
On April 17, HVS sent a separate supplemental notice to City agencies, including Judson True, raising concerns about the proposed Farmers Market, exclusionary engagement, and the pending complaint. Less than two hours later, True replied in the administrative-complaint thread, acknowledging receipt and promising a response “as soon as possible.” As of November 5, 2026, HVS had received no substantive response to the complaint.
An internal email obtained later through a disclosure request shows that, earlier on April 17, Monica Munowitch had sent True the permit, barricade document, and revocation procedures. This exchange was not shared with HVS at the time.
Read SFMTA’s acknowledgment — April 17, 2026
Date: April 17, 2026, 4:46 p.m.
From: Judson True, SFMTA Chief of Staff and Director of External Affairs
To: HVS, Julie Kirschbaum, and Shared Spaces; other staff copied
Subject: RE: Formal Administrative Complaint — Hayes Street Shared Spaces Permit
Excerpt:
“On behalf of the SFMTA, I write to confirm receipt of the emails below.
We will provide a response to your administrative complaint as soon as possible.
On the Farmers Market, please engage through the ISCOTT process.”
Source: Judson True, SFMTA acknowledgment of HVS’s administrative complaint, April 17, 2026; obtained through a public-records request.
Sources: April 10 administrative complaint; April 17 HVS supplemental notice; April 17 SFMTA internal correspondence and acknowledgment, obtained through a public-records request.
April–May 2026 — HVS requests a pause before another recurring use begins
As a weekly Farmers Market advanced, HVS raised concerns about adding it to a block already subject to the disputed Shared Spaces closure. Its published supplement and hearing correspondence questioned outreach, cumulative impacts, and coordination between the two uses.
Following ISCOTT approval, HVS requested an approximately 60-day pause on April 29 for direct engagement with affected businesses, coordinated review, and consideration of alternative locations. HVS distinguished support for a neighborhood farmers market from support for this location. Follow-ups on May 7 and May 13 continued seeking answers before implementation.
Sources: April 29 pause and coordinated-review request; May 7 follow-up; May 13 follow-up; ISCOTT April 23 agenda and May 14 minutes.
May 22, 2026 — HVS raises broader governance and representation concerns
HVS formally notified City agencies that its concerns extended beyond individual permits to how neighborhood decisions were being shaped. The notice questioned the City’s reliance on a narrow group of private organizations and called for broader participation, transparency, and accountability.
Source: HVS formal notice on governance and representation, May 22, 2026.
May–June 2026 — The Shared Spaces permit is changed to accommodate the market
On May 14, SFMTA revised Permit 1316522 to authorize Shared Spaces operations Fridays from 4–10 p.m. and Saturdays from 3–10 p.m., beginning June 6. Separately, Farmers Market Permit 1493851 authorized Saturday closures from 7 a.m.–3 p.m. The two permits together extended the authorized Saturday closure to 7 a.m.–10 p.m.
On June 12, HVS again sought written review of its April complaint, the overlapping approvals, and the permit modification. A substantive disposition of that follow-up is not located in the collected record.
Sources: Shared Spaces Permit 1316522, revised May 14, 2026; Farmers Market Permit 1493851; June 12, 2026 HVS follow-up correspondence.
May–July 2026 — HVS challenges reliance on the same organizations to represent the corridor
In correspondence concerning the Entertainment Zone Management Plan, HVS questioned whether HVNA/Hayes Promenade could function as a neutral liaison for stakeholders who disagreed with the closure. HVS connected that concern to the court proceedings and to records it said showed efforts to weaken proposed oversight safeguards.
On July 10, HVS said the revised Entertainment Zone plan still failed to address its central concerns about representation and accountability, including how independent merchants and residents could raise concerns directly with the City rather than through the organizations running the activities. It also requested clarification of notification, Thursday operations, and the distinction between HVNA and Hayes Promenade’s responsibilities.
Source: Entertainment Zone Management Plan correspondence, January 20, May 20, and July 10.
Summer 2026 — Continuing vendor activity tests the agency’s response
Building on inquiries earlier in the year, HVS repeatedly asked agencies to clarify the permitting status of recurring clothing-vendor activity, identify enforcement actions, and explain why revocation procedures had not been initiated. Its summer reports tracked continuing activity during Shared Spaces, Farmers Market operations, and periods when the street was otherwise open.
SFMTA acknowledged a July 24 complaint and said it would look into the activity. HVS continued reporting the same concern into October and seeking substantive findings rather than another acknowledgment. The outstanding issue was no longer whether agencies had received notice, but what they had determined and done in response.
Source: Vendor enforcement correspondence and follow-ups.
February–September 2026 — Head West review requests remain unanswered
On February 12, HVS requested formal review of ISCOTT’s approval of four Head West dates, questioning how merchant impacts and prior consensus-based guidance had been considered. Follow-ups in March, April, July, and September sought substantive answers. HVS also proposed a smaller event footprint using nearby spaces without closing Hayes Street. By September, HVS reported that no substantive response had been received.
Source: Head West procedural-review correspondence and alternative-footprint proposal.
September 2026 — HVS identifies the missing reopening option in the business survey
On September 2, HVS pointed out that Question 18 did not offer businesses the option of ending the recurring closure and restoring normal street operations. On September 4, Planning’s Tolu Atoyebi agreed to add that option and said the change should appear by the end of that day. Planning also agreed to clarify that responses would be identifiable to City staff but not publicly attributed to individual businesses.
How many businesses had already responded, and how those earlier responses were handled, remained unanswered questions.
Sources: September 1–8, 2026 HVS/HVSBA/SF Planning correspondence; HVS business-survey account and September 8 update.
October 2, 2026 — HVS requests Board-level oversight
HVS asked the Board of Supervisors to sponsor an oversight hearing on recurring concerns about neighborhood representation, access to City decision-making, and reliance on a narrow group of private organizations. Prompted by disclosed records concerning a proposed Community Benefit District, the letter connected those concerns to the closure, recurring markets, and the Entertainment Zone.
Source: HVS request for Board-level oversight, October 2, 2026.
October 9, 2026 — HVS returns to unresolved questions about the pedestrianization resolution
With another renewal approaching, HVS asked SF Planning and SFMTA whether Andrew Seigner’s overlapping roles in MOCAC, HVNA, and the closure had been evaluated when MOCAC adopted its 2024 pedestrianization resolution. HVS also asked what weight the City continued to give that endorsement and whether it had influenced subsequent decisions. The letter sought answers to concerns first raised two years earlier, rather than treating the advisory resolution as settled community consensus.
Source: MOCAC Hayes Street resolution: unresolved concerns.
October 9, 2026 — HVS asks the City to evaluate Parcel K as an alternative
HVS asked City officials to clarify Parcel K’s status and formally evaluate it as an alternative location for recurring programming. The letter also requested renewed public discussion about the site’s future, recalling the stakeholder process initiated in 2022.
Source: HVS: Parcel K—Status and Future Use.
October 19, 2026 — Farmers Market concerns lead to a relocation request
HVS began expressly requesting relocation through its weekly reports on August 29. A September 16 inquiry asked about market-issued parking passes. On October 19, HVS escalated its request to SFMTA leadership, citing eighteen weeks of documented operations and concerns about parking, loading, storefront visibility, barricades, and access.
HVS asked for the process to modify or terminate the market permit and for relocation to a site that would not transfer comparable burdens elsewhere in the commercial corridor. Its letter reported that the earlier pause request and subsequent inquiries still lacked a substantive written response.
Source: October 19 Farmers Market relocation and outstanding-inquiries letter.
October 2026 — HVS presses for the full survey picture and a broader decision record
HVS questioned the study’s comparisons, business-survey presentation, transportation coverage, stakeholder engagement, and consideration of reopening. In correspondence, Planning said the Board would consider more than the study alone, including the history of the closure and broader stakeholder input in a staff report.
After HVS asked about the unexplained share of survey responses, Planning supplied a complete breakdown: 10 of 32 businesses preferred the current schedule, four favored expansion, nine preferred reduced or conditional operation, seven favored ending the recurring closure, and two were undecided or unclear. Planning grouped the first three categories as support for continuation in some form. HVS distinguished that grouping from support for keeping the existing arrangement.
Sources: October HVS/SF Planning correspondence, including “Public Comment — Item 6 — Hayes Valley Public Life Study — October 28, 2026”; HVS study analysis and clarification.
October 23, 2026 — HVS asks Head West to limit events to once annually
HVS asked Head West to voluntarily limit its Hayes Valley marketplace to one event per year beginning in 2027, citing longstanding concerns about cumulative business impacts, storefront access, parking, traffic, and temporary-vendor competition. The letter stated that earlier assurances of broader engagement had not resolved the central concern about frequency. HVS sought a commitment before additional dates and vendor arrangements were finalized.
Source: HVS correspondence to Head West, October 23, 2026.
October 28, 2026 — The study discussion turns toward a longer renewal
At the SFCTA Community Advisory Committee meeting, members questioned business impacts, comparison data, and what degree of opposition could affect the project’s direction. SFMTA responded that there was no specific numerical threshold determining the decision. District 5 aide Raynell Cooper expressed support for HVNA’s proposal to renew the closure for two years or longer.
The discussion brought HVS’s longstanding questions into sharper focus: what would justify continuing or changing the closure, how would adverse impacts be weighed, and would reopening receive meaningful consideration?
Sources: SFCTA Community Advisory Committee, October 28, 2026 — Item 6 meeting materials.
November 2026 — Another renewal approaches
HVS continues to seek a substantive response to its administrative complaint and answers to longstanding questions about the closure. HVNA is seeking a two-year renewal rather than another one-year term, with support from the District 5 Supervisor’s Office. What began as a temporary measure has become a recurring closure, with continued efforts to fill the corridor with programming. HVS is asking the City to reopen Hayes Street to ordinary traffic and accommodate programming in other suitable neighborhood spaces, with individually permitted street events as needed—rather than maintain a standing closure.