Supervisors Hear Widespread Opposition to Starbucks and Taco Bell Liquor License Plans; Board Continues Hearing for Further Study

The committee convened a lengthy hearing on whether nontraditional retailers — notably applications from Starbucks and a Taco Bell Cantina — should be allowed Type 41/42 liquor licenses in San Francisco. Presenters included the SFPD ABC liaison, the California Public Utilities Commission (process questions were touched on in Item 2), San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH), UCSF researchers, the Entertainment Commission and community groups; the public comment period brought dozens of residents, youth and recovery advocates.

Lieutenant Dave Falzone (SFPD ABC Liaison) opened with maps and licensing counts showing high concentrations of alcohol outlets in San Francisco: SFPD presented retail totals (about 3,684 retail licenses) and a citywide grand total of roughly 4,665 licenses across categories (off‑sale, on‑sale, restaurant, bar, brewpub, non‑retail wholesalers). He explained procedural steps for ABC applications (500‑foot mailer, 30‑day posting, planning review), noted that a Type 41 restaurant license has an “inherent off‑sale privilege,” and said the department regularly conditions off‑sale privileges in high‑crime or high‑concentration areas but that applicants can later petition to modify conditions. Falzone named specific applications under discussion: three Starbucks locations (280 King, 565 Clay and 685 Beach Street) and a Taco Bell (710 Third Street, Beacon apartment area near AT&T Park); he reported Taco Bell had roughly 200 ABC protests accepted.

DPH Deputy Medical Director Dr. Judith Martin and UCSF Professor Laura Schmidt presented health data and research linking alcohol outlet density to injuries and violence. Professor Schmidt showed that San Francisco is an extreme outlier on a county‑level measure of Type‑41 outlet density (about 35 such outlets per square mile). UCSF and trauma‑center data were cited showing that in an early sample of 300 severe trauma patients tested for blood alcohol level, 59 percent had a positive blood alcohol reading and that severe traumas clustered in high outlet‑density census tracts. DPH and coalition representatives argued that adding new nontraditional outlets could increase youth exposure, alcohol‑related injuries and community health costs.

More than 20 speakers from youth organizations, the Hospital Council, Alcohol Justice, neighborhood associations and residents urged the supervisors to block or strictly limit these licenses; common concerns were increased drunk driving, normalization of alcohol in family and recovery spaces (Starbucks as a safe meeting place for people in recovery), and disproportionate impacts on low‑income neighborhoods. Some small business and corner‑store representatives asked for alternatives and community support rather than punitive approaches. One speaker supporting the Taco Bell Cantina concept described it as a higher‑end, locally managed concept with operational controls and said it differed from the national model.

Supervisors thanked presenters and the community and moved to continue the hearing to the call of the chair so staff and departments can study land‑use options, public health impact assessments, planning code changes and enforcement strategies. The committee carried the continuation without objection and requested follow‑up work with experts and community stakeholders.

Next steps noted by supervisors included exploring whether the City can incorporate public‑health impact assessments into licensing or land‑use decisions, coordinating with the Entertainment Commission and Office of Small Business, and collecting more detailed density and per‑capita analyses before permitting new categories of alcohol outlets.