Ventura’s permanent closure of Main Street in the downtown area does not violate the state Streets & Highways Code, a Superior Court judge has ruled. More specifically, the court ruled that allowing emergency vehicles and delivery trucks to use Main Street while closing it to through traffic does not mean the closure is “partial” under state law.
Ventura’s historic downtown includes many restaurants and other businesses along Main Street, which is not heavily used for through traffic. In 2021, the city issued the first of a series of temporary closures of Main Street primarily to allow restaurants to expand outdoor eating into the public right-of-way, as occurred in many cities during COVID. After several more temporary closures, the City Council voted to close a portion of Main Street permanently in 2024.
Though the closure was popular with most businesses and patrons, a group of downtown property owners sued to block the permanent closure, saying the city’s action constituted a partial closing under the Streets & Highways Code. The property owners also said the city violated the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960, which creates a specific process for closing streets to create a pedestrian mall, and – in an argument similar from the so-called Marilyn ruling in Palm Springs – argued that the serial temporary closures were a violation of the Streets & Highways Code. (The “Marilyn ruling” had to do with serial temporary closures to accommodate a statue of Marilyn Monroe on a street outside the Palm Springs art museum. CP&DR’s previous coverage of that case can be found here.)
Main Street Ventura during the temporary closure
Among other things, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Matthew Guasco found that Ventura did not abuse its discretion under the streets and highways code.
“The Administrative Record contains abundant evidence,” Guasco wrote, “that (a) a majority of residents including Main Street business owners, favored keeping the Main Street closure permanent; (b) re-routing vehicular traffic around the closure site did not have significant negative traffic impacts; and (c) the section of Main Street was closed for three years without negatively affecting vehicular access to Downtown Ventura. Additionally, the Administrative Record contains abundant evidence that the closure improved the revenue of businesses on Main Street by encouraging pedestrian access. Although the same data revealed dissatisfaction on the part of some business owners with the Main Street closure, the overwhelming majority of downtown business owners and residents supported the closure becoming permanent.”
The property owners also argued that permitting emergency, maintenance, and delivery vehicles, as well as cross-traffic on certain streets, constituted travel under the Streets & Highways Code. “Not so,” wrote Guasco. “The affected sections of Main Street are closed to all through traffic. The exceptions implemented by the City do not permit through traffic. Instead, they are strictly limited to vehicular access for emergency vehicles, such as ambulances fire trucks and police. These are essential to protect lives and property; they are not local travel.”
The property owners also argued that the city violated the Pedestrian Mall Act, also contained in the Streets & Highways Code, by not following the process required by that law to create a pedestrian mall. But Guasco said the Pedestrian Mall Act is an alternative method for closing streets and the city did not have to follow it.
Finally, Guasco did acknowledge that the city violated the Streets & Highways Code by implementing serial temporary closures for three years, similar to the Marilyn situation, but that this violation was mooted by the permanent closure.
The Case:
Open Main Street v. City of San Buenaventura, Ventura County Superior Court No. 2024CUWM021824
The Lawyers:
For Open Main Street: Darin Marx, Lowthrop Richards, Dmarx@lrmmt.com
For City of San Buenaventura: Peter Howell, Rutan & Tucker, PHowell@rutan.com
