.

Italian Bakery Opening In Old Baking Company Building

54 Mint Forno will reportedly open next month on Locust Street

54 Mint Forno will reportedly open next month
54 Mint Forno will reportedly open next month
A San Francisco-based company will reportedly open an Italian bakery in the old Walnut Creek Baking Company building.

A sign on the facility at 1686 Locust St. near the Lesher Center for the Arts announces that 54 Mint Forno will open soon.

A posting last month on craiglist announcing job openings said the restaurant would open in mid-February, according to a story on beyondthecreek.com.

The new restaurant is owned by 54 Mint, a company that has bakeries in Mint Plaza in San Francisco and on Oak Grove Road in Concord.

The bakery features breads, pizzas, focaccia and other simple Italian pastries.

The Walnut Creek Baking Company closed in August 2012 after a disagreement with the landlord.



One more time with feeling January 07, 2014 at 12:43 PM
As soon as someone's had 1-too-many deserts and (while driving their motor vehicle) kills someone else... Perhaps the Police Department can chime in and tell us how many people they pull over Friday and Saturday nights because of "driving under the influence of chocolate". I am merely suggesting the City set a good example to the citizenry - including those who don't or can't drink alcohol. Read my post: I did not ask anyone to stop drinking alcohol. I merely made the observation that city-sanctioned events may not be an appropriate venue to push alcohol. As well, I made no reference to personal choices in restaurants - heck, I like a glass of wine with dinner, too. You went on the "individual responsibility" path: By your logic and a leap, we should not have laws or punishment for murder - After all, if someone takes "individual responsibility" for their own actions, we would not have an issue... the City ordinances on banning smoking and plastic bags fall into your personal "risk management" program - and yet are banned items. Following your "risk management" thought process, if someone drinks alcohol at a City-sanctioned event and while driving their vehicle runs someone over, there may be some culpability (and financial liability) assigned to the City.
WC-Independent January 07, 2014 at 04:23 PM
If, at the event, the servers forced it down their mouths, I agree. Do they server Gluten or meat? Some may not be able to consume that either. Should it be removed to set an example? I guess I'm frustrated that people can't do anything because others can't (e.g. gluten) or don't like it, or someone may over consume. Basically, a minority of people can remove things, places, features (e.g. alcohol license) etc, that a majority have no problems with and enjoy. My definition of individual responsibility is slightly different. People need to have the ability to control themselves, we cannot legislate that control to a certain degree. Having a candy jar that says please enjoy in moderation will not prevent some from stuffing themselves with it. Should we remove the candy jar and punish those that stop by and enjoy a piece or two?
sandman January 07, 2014 at 05:35 PM
One more time with feeling said. " I did not ask anyone to stop drinking alcohol. I merely made the observation that city-sanctioned events may not be an appropriate venue to push alcohol." But you did. You are asking the city to stop serving alcohol at city sanctioned activities, which is the same as telling people who go to these aactivities that they cannot drink alcohol there. As for your suggestion the city should set a good example, what you think is a good example, may be a bad example to someone else. Plus, we don't need government telling us what habits we can have. BTW, I don't smoke but what the city council did on the smoking issue was wrong. It was government overkill, which we do not need.
One more time with feeling January 11, 2014 at 01:15 PM
sandman, thank you for your feedback. No - I did not. Those who choose to drink at city-funded, city-sanctioned, functions on city-owned property could bring their own alcohol. Or someone else can provide/fund the bar - not City taxpayers on taxpayer funds. I guess you don't know anyone who has been killed or injured by someone "under influence".
Bob Brittain January 11, 2014 at 06:15 PM
I don't know of a case where the City has funded alcohol for a function. The functions I'm aware of on City property either had a no-host bar or other people or non-government organizations provided the beverages.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »