As the last photo in the article shows, the site of the former Nut House is right next to a huge parking structure. It makes sense not to require parking for the new business.
A takeaway here is how much valuable real estate is taken up by parking. If we did not rely so much on cars, that space could be hused for housing and revenue-generating buinesses, thus expanding the tax base.

How could anyone in their right mind think that having a Caltrain stop near a restaurant makes it unnecessary to have parking?

"How could anyone in their right mind think that having a Caltrain stop near a restaurant makes it unnecessary to have parking?"

Because they'll use any excuse to justify their density push no matter how insane?

See also: workers don't need cars to get to work, build housing close to jobs because Silicon Valley workers never ever change jobs, tolls and congestion pricing will reduce car traffic although we're forced to absorb 1,000,000 more housing units....

@Bart Anderson. I agree. As we move California to a pedestrian walkway, why do we need parking at the old site? There is a parking garage right next to it. None of the other restaurants on that block have parking, including the ones right across the street. Let’s increase the outdoor space.

As another commenter shows, there is a giant parking structure directly behind the site. Even at its busiest times, like Sunday Farmers Market, that structure has ample space. And that's notwithstanding the additional ample parking on adjacent streets.

A great step to ensuring less wasted space and less implicit subsidy for car culture. Good move that benefits the street and the community.

How kind, and convenient,of the bill’s authors to insure that a provision meant to facilitate the building of affordable housing could be used to increase the profits of commercial developers. This is not more ‘outdoor’ or ‘community’ space.’ It is more room in which to make money. Can we call this what it really is? A transfer of money from the City (who built the parking lot at its own expense) to developers/business owners. Those who think no one needs a car is delusional given the lack of decent public transport ion (and no, a single north-south train doesn’t qualify, and I don’t see people riding the bus to Cal Ave to have dinner).

I am having flashbacks of the patio at (ye old) Kirk's on California Ave., which was a lovely place for a lunchtime burger.

Definitely an homage to the old Kirks outdoor patio. But then again one could expect nothing less from the Hayes group architects.

Despite the fact they are wrong, I at least normally _understand_ the PoV of the parking mandate people -- it can be inconvenient to look for parking!

But look at those pictures! It's literally right next to a newly-built multi-million dollar parking structure! I consider myself an emphatic person, but I am not able to imagine the thought process that looks at this story and says, "hmm, rather than any productive use, we should force the owners of that property to leave it as empty space for ten more cars."

I personally believe that requiring businesses to build an arbitrary amount of parking is not a good statute. Using this house bill, business can build without needing to cater to car-owners, and build for the people and customers rather than cars. Our cities have long been stained by car-centric urban planning, and thankfully that stain is slowly being cleaned out.

Henry Grabar's book, Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World, does an excellent job explaining the damage parking minimums have done to our cities and how many cities are now working to repair that damage.

Antonio's Nut House is too valuable a community space to convert into another high end restaurant. It would be far more useful as a city-owned community space with a few retails to fill the void of practical needs--a teen center with art/craft, tutoring, recreation drop in; meeting rooms for knitting/book/social groups (even could hold a weekend adult school class there), a small pharmacy, etc. to recapture some of the lost utility on Cal Ave.

Like it or not, the need for parking is a reality that should be planned for so that people frequent the businesses in an area. We drive and that is not likely to change significantly enough in the foreseeable future to pretend otherwise. In this case, the Antonio's location is close enough to the public garage that it is probably okay to not require additional parking, but the developer should be required to make an in-lieu contribution. And if our darling legislators have managed to pass legislation that gives them a way around this, the developer should acknowledge the stupidity of that exemption and do it anyway. And those legislators should not be re-elected b/c they are not smart.

About how cities are planned: I find it "amusing" that the image chosen for the new city that a handful of wealthy tech investors are planning in Solana County looks inspired more by Birge Clark than Ken Hayes. It also looks a bit utopian, like an updated, hip version of Disney's Main Street. The developer who took over the block where JJ&F once was started out with appealing images of what was to come. Things didn't turn out quite so appealing. If I lived in Solano County, I'd be wary of all this early-stage sweet talk and happy planning.

@Annette, the images of that Solano City of the future have been compared to the Riviera and there's been much criticism and commentary about how they were generated and the various inaccuracies. Lots of coverage the next time you're bored.

Re the replacement for JJ&F, you're the master / mistress of understatement.

That is the most uninviting, cheap-looking building being proposed. It lacks warmth and looks like an office building designed with Legos. The Nut House had old skool charm that is being scrubbed in this new building and that is sad. As for parking, you would think there would be at least some ADA-compliant places near the building, but developers do not care about who will use the buildings, they just care about maximum profit.

I long for the day when real design skills and inviting places to hang out come back into fashion again. We'll look back on this era and cringe at these masculine-looking structures being built now.