Planning Commission backs temporary ban on new 'tobacco paraphernalia' shops on Haight Street, 6–1

The Planning Commission on May 7 recommended approval of a planning‑code amendment aimed at limiting new tobacco‑paraphernalia retail uses along Upper and Lower Haight Street. The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and presented by planning staff, tightens the definition of tobacco‑paraphernalia establishments and would make such uses not permitted within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District overlays for a three‑year period.

Tara Sullivan of the Planning Department described the measure’s elements: for the Haight overlay, the definition would be tightened so that "if a retail establishment sells even one item" of tobacco paraphernalia it would trigger the use category; the district change would shift the use from a conditional use to not permitted; the measure would create a Lower Haight Tobacco Paraphernalia Restricted Use District and include a three‑year sunset to allow evaluation.

Rick Galbraith, legislative assistant to Supervisor Mirkarimi, said the change responded to neighborhood complaints that the 15% threshold in the existing definition allowed businesses to evade regulation by concentrating paraphernalia on wall‑space and shelving while still technically keeping the footprint under that threshold. He said the measure also shortens abandonment/grandfathering protection to 18 months in the new subdistricts so that vacancy would allow a new use to be barred after 18 months.

Supporters from neighborhood associations argued the proliferation of head shops crowds out neighborhood‑serving uses. Longstanding store proprietor Jim Siegel said the current practice violates state rules meant to keep paraphernalia out of view of minors and asked for stronger enforcement. Merchants and some merchants’ groups said the change was a blunt instrument and urged more systematic, neighborhood‑led approaches.

Commission debate focused on enforcement, the appropriate grandfathering period and whether the amendment was reactive. Commissioner Lee moved to approve the legislation, seconded by Commissioner Bridal; the motion carried 6–1 with Commissioner Olague voting no.

What passed at the commission level is a recommendation to adopt the code change as described; the ordinance has implementation details to be worked through with the Board of Supervisors and administrative code provisions for nonconforming uses. The Planning Commission’s action will be forwarded to the Board for subsequent legislative action.

Vote: motion to approve planning‑code amendments affecting Haight Street — passed 6–1 (Olague opposed).