The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday to table consideration for Yaron Milgrom’s proposed restaurant, Local’s Corner, for three more weeks so that he can do more outreach with neighbors.
Milgrom, the owner of Local: Mission Eatery on 24th Street, wants to open a 590-square-foot restaurant with outdoor seating at the corner of 23rd and Bryant streets. The project would serve a European-style breakfast and sustainable fish for dinner, along with beer and wine. It would be allowed to remain open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., though Milgrom said the restaurant would not open until 8 a.m.
The item was continued two weeks ago for the same reason, after supervisor David Campos asked local residents to hold a meeting. At a community meeting a week ago, Milgrom and some of his neighbors failed to come to an agreement. A three-hour mediation meeting at Campos’ office on Wednesday night also failed.
“I heard from sources there might be something gained with additional meetings,” said Commission President Ron Miguel. “Although everyone should understand that it doesn’t mean that there would be a total agreement about all of the things the neighbors are asking for, and vice versa.”
Currently Milgrom is organizing another community meeting through the Lower 24th Street Merchants Association. The time has not yet been set.
The restaurant would replace a former bodega, which the building owner was transforming into a deli. The owner, who also manages another restaurant nearby, decided to lease the building to Milgrom after Milgrom approached him with his idea.
Two neighbors at Thursday’s meeting said they would not oppose the project, but wanted more time for Milgrom to hear their concerns.
“We find it unacceptable that a business owner wants to come in and put a business on a quiet corner but is unwilling to take longtime residents’ concerns into account,” said Jennifer Jones, who currently lives in the flat upstairs from the proposed restaurant and has been in the neighborhood for 13 years. “We feel he has tried to bulldoze his way in.”
Neighbors were mainly concerned with the noise that is associated with outdoor seating and consumption of beer and wine in a residential neighborhood.
For his part, Milgrom said he understands their noise concerns, as he lives across the street from the restaurant.
“My wife and children sleep across the street, our quality of life at home is highly correlated to the collective sleep of my house,” he told the commission. “I do not want to disturb that.”
Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya said that for a restaurant as small as Local’s Corner, not having outdoor seating is “non-negotiable.”
Milgrom also pointed out that Asiento, which is two blocks away from the proposed restaurant, was approved without opposition and is allowed to be open until 2 a.m. The restaurant, which has a full liquor license, also has an entertainment permit that allows it to have DJ music until midnight on weekends.
As for the beer and wine license, being able to offer those beverages is part of running a restaurant, he said.
Three out of four of the speakers who attended said they want the conversation to continue.
“We absolutely do not want to stop this business, but we feel the community outreach has been insignificant thus far,” Jones said.
Commissioner Gwyneth Borden agreed.
“I know from very good authority he has not been respectful in doing outreach to the community,” she said. “It is all about allowing people to speak their opinions about things that are happening in their neighborhoods and listening to them and treating them with respect and dignity….”
The Planning Department requires community meetings for projects larger than Milgrom’s proposal. Milgrom said he did not hear a request for a community meeting until two days before the Planning Commission meeting two weeks ago. When it came up at that meeting, he agreed to have one.
“I don’t think I’ve done everything perfectly, but this is not a one-way issue,” he said. He noted that a few people at the neighborhood meeting last week accused him, at times discourteously and abrasively, of only being interested in profiting at the expense of the neighborhood.
Miguel suggested that both parties talk more.
“Try to get as close as you can,” he said. “I think this entire project is a good one.”
As someone who has traversed this neighborhood multiple times a week for the past five years, I have to say that I think you can’t just say no to new businesses. In the short amount of time that I’ve been a part of this community, I’ve seen numerous dilapidated storefronts transformed into niche thriving businesses both on 24th St. and on some of the surrounding side streets.
In the large majority of cases, the small business developer has the best interest of the community at heart and is genuinely interested in engaging the local community in a partnership for the benefit of everyone involved. Take for example, asiento, a bar, mentioned in a post above, which is two blocks away on 21st and Bryant. 18 months ago, this was a poorly maintained bar named “Monkey Club” that had deteriorated for a number of reasons. The new owner, Debbie, who I met while visiting the place last week for the first time has not changed the nature of the business or altered the character of the corner in any way. She simply renovated the interior of the building and has opened it up with a different name under her management. If you walk by there, you wouldn’t even notice the change unless you walked in because she left the unique mural that exists on the outside of the building intact. This is an example of someone who has respect for the character of the neighborhood.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the would be proprietor of “Local’s Corner”. First, the nature of the new business establishment Mr. Milgrom hopes to open is totally different from store that existed before he began his operation. By itself, this wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, however in pondering the future he has in store for 23rd and Bryant, it makes sense to look at the nature of the restaurant he built six blocks away on 24th and Folsom. I’ve eaten at that restaurant, “Local: Mission Eatery”, twice and I have to say that the character of that restaurant has nothing to do with “local” or “Mission” other that the fact that its physical location is in the Mission. The fact that he may buy some of the food that he serves there locally can’t mitigate for the fact that the character of the restaurant is totally incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood. One can only surmise that the naming of the restaurant “Local Mission Eatery” was done as a ruse to forestall proper scrutiny by residents in the surrounding community. His use of the word, “Local” in the naming of his second franchise unit should be met with appropriate skepticism.
As for the neighbors who will have to endure the clientele of this high dollar “local corner” on a daily basis, I can only say that I do not envy them. Gauging from the clientele that frequent Mr. Milgrom’s other “Local” franchise, they can expect to be treated as quaint local color that is to be tolerated while imagining that they’ve smartly stumbled upon a pleasant spot, “hidden in the slums” of the Mission.
In summary, my view is that fresh businesses that genuinely partner with neighbors for mutual benefit are the lifeblood of any thriving community. Unfortunately, in this case, the underlying motive seems to be, on examination, exploitative.
Why isn’t Mission Local’s policy against the same person posting under different user names being enforced against “Pythagoras Hernandez”/”Reasonable Doubt” ?
Let’s keep the discussion ON-TOPIC. It’s not about you and your delicate sensibilities.
Permanent changes to land use in a city are important, and should be approached democratically and cautiously.
In the corporate world, the boss gets to be dictator. This isn’t like that.
I think it’s entirely on topic to point out that you can’t abide by a few simple rules on a community news website while loudly advocating your factually incorrect opinions and telling everyone what they should think or do. I think it’s extremely relevant with regards to how your comments should be interpreted by readers.
Your obsession with the corporate world despite your obvious lack of any real experience with it makes me wonder what happened to give you such a complex about it.
I also think you need to go revisit the definitions of democracy, minority and majority since you seem to be having a lot of trouble with those concepts.
I would make a deal with any devil to get rid of a problem corner liquor store.
Perhaps, but this particular store was not problematic.
And, as mr Zielinski pointed out, it was no more a “liquor store” than Safeway is.
Zoning laws exist for real reasons; allow anyone to build anything anywhere they feel like it, and next thing you know, we’ve replicated the Los Angeles basin here. If you haven’t been to LA, check it out some time. It’s not nice.
That corner of 23rd and Bryant is zoned RM-1– low density residential mixed. (San Francisco zoning map available at http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569 .) It’s residential zoning, for residents; people bought properties and/or moved into the residential neighborhood expecting the places nearby to be residences. Among other things, residences don’t emit the same level of noise or cooking smells that restaurants do, which is why wise cities put residents one place and restaurants in another place a little ways away.
In this case, there’s commercial NCT zoning not one block away, along 24th Street. Everyone nearby knows that that’s where the restaurants go; they’ve long since reconciled themselves to it, or at least if they haven’t they don’t really have a leg to stand on about it.
I’m not seeing anything from anyone leading me to believe that the folks who drew up the zones had their heads screwed on wrong, and so should have colored in a little patch of commercial zoning square in the middle of the residential neighborhood right there at 23rd and Bryant.
I suggest what should go in that RM-1 zoned property is something allowed under RM-1, because that’s why we have parts of the city zoned RM-1 in the first place. Do that, and there no need for anyone to consult with the neighbors about it at all.
This is a gross distortion and misreading of the city’s zoning laws.
First, nobody is building anything. What is proposed is a small restaurant moving into an existing space that was previously occupied by a liquor shop. Your comparison to LA is outright inapplicable here.
Second, the definition of RM-1 expressly states that nonresidential uses are often present to provide for the needs of the residents. Note, that it doesn’t discuss the needs of _all_ residents, because then no business would ever move into that space because of a handful of whiny NIMBYs and armchair defenders of Mission culture.
Indeed, there are uses allowed for RM-1 zoning that are not residences. Were Mr. Milgrom proposing to do one of these, there would be no issue. However, full service restaurants are not on the list of approved uses for RM-1. For good reason; restaurants produce noise and smell, bring greater fire risks, produce more sewage, have higher garbage pickup requirements, consume more area parking, and so forth.
And as it happens, Mr. Milgrom is not merely seeking to install a small restaurant in the old space; the old space is 590 square feet, far too small to accommodate both food preparation and a place for people to sit. He’s having to request outside seating. (A point that is “non-negotiable”, according to Commissioner Sugaya.) Hence, in addition to using the space inside he’ll be paying for, he’s requesting reallocation of the sidewalk away from public space. Now, some basic city planning: residential areas necessitate a lot of child, child stroller, wheelchair, and elder foot traffic. They have wide sidewalks because they have to; children move erratically and haven’t developed good judgement yet, so they need plenty of room so they don’t all get killed darting into traffic. Putting in a choke point screws this up, which is why wise city planners don’t do it.
In fact, there’s a school half a block away: http://www.sfusd.edu/en/schools/school-information/s.f.-international.html . (The address is 1050 York– but it’s a block wide, and so has entrances on Bryant.) So we’re not just talking about reallocating a public sidewalk for private use. We’re talking about reallocating a public sidewalk that kids are using to get to their public school. (Both on foot and by bus; just in front of the space in question is a 27 Bryant line MUNI stop.)
While I’m at it: La Placita Market was not some sort of problem for the neighborhood. It was what I’d describe as a “bodega”– a neighborhood store. Yes, they sold beer, and had a rack of bottles of booze covered in dust behind the cashier– but they mostly sold bread, milk, fruit, shaving cream, and all the other random sundries people run out to the corner for. I got the impression their big money makers were detergent and sodas for the people using the laundromat across the street. Such uses are non-intensive– they’re exactly the sort of things that ARE allowed in RM-1, even though they’re shops rather than residences. In part, this is because they’re regulated as to when they’re allowed to remain open. Thus, La Placita’s doors closed at nine, or maybe eight if it was a slow night. The drunks are instead on 24th Street, which features stores (in commercial zoning) that are allowed to stay open until all hours. Hence, trying to get people to call La Placita a “liquor store” or “liquor shop” is spin. It’s no more accurate than calling Safeway a “liquor store” would be. So make no mistake: this sought-for replacement of a quiet early-closing bodega with a loud late-closing restaurant would not be an upgrade to this residential neighborhood. It would be a downgrade.
Cities need both commercial space for commerce and residential space for residents. Unfortunately, they don’t mix well. Solution: put the commercial development in commercial zoning that’s been planned for, and put residents in the residential zoning that’s been planned for. Follow the city plan hammered out long ago– the one that does its best to accommodate both restaurants AND residents without either stepping on the other– and we’re golden.
I defend the Mission on my bike, baby. 🙂
It’s all good. I think it’s on everyone who cares to push into understanding planning codes more deeply. Can you tell me which site you’re referring to? (Without calling me a name?)
Is it this?:http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569
Stephan, you’ve said very succinctly what so many of us have just been circling around. Thank you.
Because of this conversation. I’ve just started looking at SF zoning regulations to confirm what I suspected (and what you appear to be confirming) that city planners recognized then and now that cities have zones that are dedicated to domestic and residential spaces. And this is a legitimate use of urban space.
The $33-$50 per person figure is accurate for a TYPICAL dinner at “Local Eatery” (entree, appetizer, beverage, tax, tip), and i’m assuming the new place will have similar pricing.
Go look at Locals menu if you don’t believe me, and the St Anthony’s website to verify the $100 per 230 dinners figure.
Details aside, when executives are paid 100 times what laborers are paid, and nice dinners cost (about) 100 times what simple dinners cost, there is something VERY WRONG.
Strangely, in the Bay area bubble of intellect and affluence, there doesn’t seem to much interest in this fundamental breakdown of society, yet band-aid crusades like plastic bag bans and locavorism are all the rage.
I neeeds to be reiterated that this is about changing the rules.
Current zoning does NOT allow a full service restaurant at this location, that’s why it’s before the planning department. Milgrom is seeking an exception to the rules, called a “conditional use permit”. If he was opening on a business street like 24th, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The proposed rule change is bad for renters, and this area is >75% renters.
In case you hadn’t noticed, rents are absurdly high and climbing steadily. And when upscale restaurants start percolating into the side streets of what remains a mostly lower income area, the rents will rise EVEN FASTER. It’s called gentrification.
I hear lots of praise for the jobs that will be created, but where are these dishwashers and wait staff supposed to live when a studio apartment costs more than their net income?
This kind of in-your-face conspicuous consumption doesn’t belong on a side street in the mission.
So, to summarize the proposal: poor self-service beer drinkers evicted so rich people can be served beer (and hors d’oeuvres) by wait staff who can no longer afford to live in the area.
You mean the self-service drinkers who harass me and other women outside of half the liquor stores in the Mission? No thanks. I can live without the self-service beer drinkers then.
What does belong on the side-street in the Mission then? How about an organization aimed to help the mentally ill or people in outpatient rehab – it would be conveniently located near SF General.
What do you really want? Another taqueria to add to the zillions already in the Mission? Another crappy liquor store to add to the already plentiful number of crappy liquor stores? Despite Suki’s desire for property she or he does not own, there will be a business or organization of some kind there. Sorry if it isn’t to your liking. I quite personally hate the stupid hipster bar near my house. But I don’t own the building and it’s better than what was there before, so I live with it. Maybe all of you should too with this restaurant or whatever else goes in that spot.
A list of functions I would rather have on that corner than a $100 per couple restaurant…
Bakery where one could get fresh bread or a pastry for a few dollars.
Child care center
Gallery
Cafe
Florist
Dog Groomer
Violin Maker
Computer Doctor
Philly Cheese Steak Stand ($8)
Museum of Bugs
Robotic Cuckoo Clock Research Institute
Tutoring Center
Tailor
Cobbler
Cat Circus
That’s all I can think of at the moment.
P.S. For $100, St Anthony’s Dining Room feeds 230 people; “Local’s Corner” will feed 2 or 3. If you don’t think that’s decadent, then you’re not seeing the big picture.
Then why don’t you start one of those businesses or organizations, Pythagoras? Come up with funds to rent the space.
Because people like Pythagoras like to tell everyone else how they should be living their lives, rather than actually leading by example and doing something themselves – it’s much easier just to rant about software professionals on a WEBSITE using a BROWSER right ?
Whatever… too bad you feel the need to lie about the cost of food at Local in your multiple and misleading posts. .
Why do you think I desire property?
“Desire for” meaning in this case what you want to do with property that isn’t yours, not that you want to own it.
It’s not so much “what I want to do with property that isn’t mine”. It’s more about I think conversations and plans about what happens with neighborhood development should be informed by current zoning practices and neighborhood input. No one is suggesting that his property should be seized.
! Really.
Good point.
If you are worried about the noise move to the boonies. Cannot understand why people make such a big deal about a business opening in theire neighborhood. They can get into an agreement with the owner about hours of operations and make sure there is enough insulation in the restaurant’s ceilings so the noise level stays descent. Otherwise let the man make a living and in the process create jobs and ambelish the neighborhood with a new business
I think thats all the neighbors want, is to have some say. I don’t think I would want a neighbor that is not willing to work with folks, no matter how pretty this restaurant is. It tells me a bit of this persons character and how things may not work in the future if issues arise.
It’s sad that NIMBYs have such power to halt creativity and employment in SF. Local Mission Eatery is such a great restaurant. Come to Precita Park! We need more food options over at this edge of the Mission.
Yes, perhaps the whole park can be “revitalized” into a food court of deluxe restuarants with valet parking.
I hope Milgrom opens his restaurant elsewhere and a Pentecostal church with lots of singing and tambourines opens in its place.
I agree. Art and culture are better than 1%ers eating dinner.
As if we needed you to use the pharse 1%ers to let us know you should be off occupying something. Somewhere.
Suki, you complain about liquor stores in the other thread and then regarding this restaurant idea you’d rather it stay a liquor store. I for one am confused by your p.o.v.
Clearly, this restaurant, along with it’s sensible owner, is the kind of business we all want to have in our thriving urban neighborhood. We should feel lucky we have someone like Milgrom investing in the area with such an innovative and respectful approach.
You’re incorrect. I’m actually not stating a preference for it to be a liquor store. Read my comments more closely. I’m advocating for the rights of neighborhood residents to weigh in on development that affects them. I live across from a liquor store that routinely has 5 to 6 guys hanging out in front of it drinking and fighting.
(If I were to advocate for any businesses at all it would probably be a bakery.)
I’m mostly concerned with the silly “nimby” word and retiring it from these discussions. It’s inappropriate to this debate.
I would agree with you if your postings on this blog didn’t peg you as such a massive NIMBY.
Using the word nimby is just pointless name calling.
And in your case, 100% accurate.
The best outcome of these discussions is that more people will find out about this business concept and will support it once it’s gotten past these hurdles (I know I will). Locally sourced food is an important step forward. Ideally we will find ways to make it affordable and accessible to everyone.
I’m not really worried about this because I know the restaurant will open sooner or later, but this is another example of the entitlement that long-time tenants feel in SF.
Just because you’ve been in one place for 10+, it doesn’t give you any more “right” to what can or cannot open across the street. If you want to complain, buy property. If you can’t afford to buy land, deal with the consequences of being a renter or move somewhere where you can buy.
There are some cases where I can see exceptions (loud clubs, seedy establishments), but the prevailing opinion that any sort of change needs to be scrutinized and that the business somehow “owes” it to the neighbors to get their opinions is ridiculous. He’s opening a nice local restaurant. Stop complaining about change.
“Complaining” is different than scrutinizing, which is really what the neighbors, esp. the one that lives right above the restaurant, appear to be doing.
Why shouldn’t she have say into something that will almost certainly change to tempo and noise levels inside her apartment?
I lived above a restaurant for two years and while it was a mellow restaurant, having the sound effects of a gang of people in my living quarters sucks.
…and advising her to buy property is just silly.
Give him a break. I understand the neighborhood concerns about noise. However, being a neighbor himself I think milgrom really has our best interest in mind. I really look forward to this new restaurant and support it whole heartily. I think it will improve the neighborhood.
Goes around, comes around… work with the residents in the area first THEN with the neighborhood associations.