From: biancadejong forestspaboutique.com
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ramona Street development
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 6:50:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear members or the Palo Alto City Council,
Today, my landlord, Roxy Rap, requested I email the city council regarding the street development on Ramona Street.
As a retailer and personal service provider, part of attracting new customers comes from our street presence. For the past years, our beautiful Ramona Street has looked like an absolute construction zone, especially right in front of our location. Even though we do not agree with the current “construction zone look,” Forest Spa Boutique has embraced outdoor dining.
We’ve only experienced a positive impact on our business.
Forest Spa Boutique attracts new clients online and through our street presence. Foot traffic represents potential customers who are actively engaged with our retail business. They read our A-frame, scout out our window, and decide right there and then if they like to enter our premises. Drive-by traffic is passive; you can only hope you left enough visual impressions for them to get into action later. With this said Forest Spa Boutique definitely prefers higher numbers of active foot traffic than drive-by traffic.
I feel Roxy Rapp’s street design gives us everything we need. The beautifully designed sidewalks are wide enough to dine safely without obstructing the pedestrian flow we so much rely on. It also allows immediate safety access for emergency response. Above all, it will expose all the nostalgic Hispanic atmosphere Ramona Street has to offer since the closed-off street section will be so much more openly exposed.
As a business owner, I am concerned about how efficiently the city will execute a plan like this. Construction and barricaded sidewalks will be a huge nuisance for all business owners on Ramona Street. It will be key to execute any plan fast, without delay, and with as little disturbance as possible.
I’ll be happy to corroborate more during the next upcoming meeting.
Thank you!
Bianca de Jong
Owner
Forest Spa Boutique
530 Ramona Street # B
Palo Alto CA 94301
(408)759-0576
www.forestspaboutique.com
Sent from my iPhone
From: Respicio, Maryknol
To: Lauing, Ed; Council, City
Cc: City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan; City Attorney; Lanferman, David; Leggio, Erik Subject: City Council Special Meeting - March 10, 2025 - Agenda Item #7 / Comments and Objections to Threatened Permanent Street Closures
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:01:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
2025 0307 Letter to Mayor and City Council re City Council 3-10-25 Meeting.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Attached please find a letter from David Lanferman regarding the above matter.
Please let Mr. Lanferman know if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you.
Maryknol Respicio
Assistant to David P. Lanferman
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste. 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94306 O. (650) 320-1500 | D. (650) 320-1500 x7723
[email protected]
| www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
David P. Lanferman
Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507
E-mail: [email protected]
March 7, 2025
R u t a n & Tu c k e r , L L P | F iv e P a lo A l to S q u a re , 3 0 0 0 E l C a mi n o Re a l, S u i te 2 0 0 P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6-9 8 1 4 | 6 5 0-3 2 0-1 5 0 0 | F a x 6 5 0- 3 2 0- 9 9 0 5 O r a n g e C o u n ty | P a lo A lto | S a n F ra n c is c o | Sc o t ts d a le | w w w . ru ta n . c o m 2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
VIA E-MAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: City Council Special Meeting – March 10, 2025 – Agenda Item #7 Comments and Objections to Threatened Permanent Street Closures Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of a coalition of concerned citizens, property owners, merchants, and residents, we respectfully object to the proposal that the City Council take actions to permanently close portions (or additional portions) of the public streets known as California Avenue and Ramona Street.
There are many reasons for objecting to the proposed actions under this Agenda Item – particularly with regard to Ramona Street, e.g., preservation of the nationally-recognized unique historic and architectural features of Ramona Street, restoring public safety and accessibility to vital services and emergency vehicles, removing blockage of private driveways (including driveway access to a large underground garage below 250 Unive rsity), and revival of economic and retail vitality. This letter, however, is focused on two critical legal requirements under California law that preclude the Council from approving the proposed actions – at least without further public engagement and analysis: (i) the California Vehicle Code and (ii) CEQA.
As the California Supreme Court explained in a similar case years ago:
“The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and every citizen of the state has a right to the use thereof, subject to legislative control . . . . The right of control over street traffic is an exercise of a part of the sovereign power of the s tate . . . . ‘The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived . . . [All] persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper means , and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others.’” (Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 554, 550 [rejecting Berkeley’s attempts to install bollards to block portions of public streets, in violation of the limits on street closures established by the Legislature in the Vehicle Code] [emphasis by the Court].)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2025
2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
The threatened permanent closure of Ramona Street between University Avenue and Hamilton, is of particular concern. That area includes the historically -important portions of the “Ramona Street Architectural District” that have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as well the City’s own Historic Registry. The coalition for preservation of Ramona Street includes people and businesses who seek to preserve the irreplaceable historic and architectural character of Ramona Street and its economic and cultural urban vitality.
According to the posted Agenda, the proposed actions would entail (1) amendments to the City’s Comprehensive (General) Plan to “re-classify” portions of Ramona Street and California Avenue as “car-free streets,” and “closing those streets to vehicular traffic; ” and (2) adopting an Ordinance empowering the City Manager to “create regulations” for the use of those streets. Both of those proposed actions are subject to objection on numerous grounds , two of which are summarized below. The City Council may not lawfully “delegate” its limited legislative authority over public streets to unelected staff in the absence clear and objective standards and criteria.
The proposed closures are not only in derogation of controlling State law , but are also inconsistent with the City’s land use plans and policies, and insensitive to the rights and interests of the impacted communities.
1. Failure to Comply With the California Vehicle Code
As the Supreme Court has made clear, “the streets of a city belong to the people of the state ...” and “a city’s police powers do not extend to control of vehicular traffic on its streets; that field has been preempted.” (Rumford, supra, p. 553.)
The Legislature has therefore limited the authority of cities – even charter cities – to close public streets. The City is only authorized to permanently close a street or highway when the city council makes findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the street “is no longer needed for vehicular traffic.” (Vehicle Code § 21101, subd. (a).) The City has failed to do so. And nothing on the Agenda indicates that the Council expects to comply with this requirement of State law before it acts to perma nently close Ramona Street. Not only would the proposed Council actions procedurally violate the Vehicle Code, but there is no substantial evidence that would support such a finding.
The record indicates that back in June 2020, in response to the then -prevalent Covid-19 pandemic, the City adopted an “interim urgency measure” to temporarily close California Avenue and portions of University Avenue, and to allow outdoor dining and retail in those areas.1 The City
1 Council Resolution No. 9902 (June 23, 2020), Sec. 3: Additional Closures. “The City Manager is authorized in his or her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services to extend the University Avenue closure to temporarily close the streets intersecting University Avenue in the Downtown area, from Emerson Street to Cowper Street, by issuance of an order, rule or regulation if the City Manager finds it is reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2025
2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
then invoked the “public health” emergency, and cited subdivision (e) of Vehicle Code § 21101, which allows a city to approve “[t]emporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities ... the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.” (Emphasis added.)
Although the City subsequently took actions to periodically “extend” the “temporary” closures that had begun in 2020, at no time did the City ever take legal action purporting to determine that Ramona Street was “no longer needed for vehicular traffic” – as is required by State law in order to justify the threatened permanent or long-term closure of Ramona Street. The City Council may not lawfully approve a permanent street closure without first making an evidence-based finding that the street is “no longer needed for vehicular traffic” as required by Vehicle Code § 21101 (a). [A] city is not expressly authorized to close a street for any purpose other than that it is unnecessary for present or future uses as a street. ( Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v. Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 812, 821 ....) “What the City cannot do is wave the magic wand and declare a public street not to be a public street.” (Zacks v. City of Sausalito (2008) 165 Cal.App.4 th 1163, 1184 [holding that property owner could pursue claims against the city for improperly acting to close a street without complying with the Vehicle Code].) Not only does the newly-threatened permanent closure of Ramona Street violate California law, but the City’s past actions purporting to extend a temporary closure for nearly five (5) years also exceeded and violated the statutory limits on the City’s authority. For example, even though the City “re-opened” University Avenue in October 2021, the City improperly continued to extend the “temporary closure” of Ramona Street – long after the City of Council had rescinded its declaration of local health emergency on July 1, 2021. Even though that health crisis had been the only proffered excuse for the “temporary” closure of Ramona, on September 13, 2021, the Council voted to extend the street closures of portions of California Avenue and Ramona Street – to allow for the continued use of these streets for outdoor dining and other activities as may be allowed. The Council voted on each street separately and Resolution No. 9988 extended the temporary closure of Ramona Street only; a separate resolution (No. 9987) extended the closure of California Avenue. At the same meeting, the Council directed the City Manager to open the portion of University Avenue which was closed by Resolution No. 9909 – which should have automatically ended the “temporary” closure of Ramona pursuant to Resolution No. 9909.
The Court of Appeal recently made clear that the Vehicle Code “permits local authorities to close portions of streets only for a relatively short period of time , assuming there has been a
the Local Emergency. These side street closures shall only extend for one block from University Avenue, between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue to the north and between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue to the south, and shall be in effect no longer than the period of the University Avenue closure.” (Emphasis added.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2025
2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
determination that the closure is necessary to safeguard and protect persons using the street during the temporary closing. It does not authorize local authorities to close streets to vehicular traffic for whatever nonpermanent duration of time they desire.” (Comm. to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs (2023) 88 Cal.App.4th 607, 628 [holding that the City exceeded its authority and acted unlawfully by attempting to close a public street for a period of three (3) years].) The City’s imposition of prolonged temporary closures on Ramona Street , for more than four years , have exceeded the City’s limited authority to “temporarily” close streets under Veh. Code § 21101(e).
The City should not, and cannot legally, continue to put the Ramona Street community in “limbo.” The Council should take no action on the proposed Agenda items – unless and until the Council and the public are provided with substantial evidence that persuasively demonstrates the street “is no longer needed for vehicular use” -- as mandated by California law.
2. Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) It would be a violation of CEQA for the City Council to take action on these Agenda items on the basis of the proposed “Addendum” to the EIR prepared in connection with the City’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan (2030). That Plan and its “program-level” EIR were adopted back in November 2017 – more than seven (7) years ago – and the old EIR has become outdated and in many respects, no longer relevant to currently-existing conditions and environmental issues.
The old “program-level” 2017 EIR does not provide the necessary detailed analysis of the impacts of the new proposed actions, which are essentially “project level” actions targeted at specific street segments. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15146.) A new project-level activity cannot be approved based on a n older program EIR “if its impacts were not evaluated in the [program] EIR.” (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1164; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1321.) In the years since 2017, many things have changed in Palo Alto, making reliance on the Comprehensive Plan EIR unsustainable. One of those post-2017 changes to the project area is the Covid pandemic, and the City’s decision to impose a “temporary” closure of Ramona Street for public health reasons. There have been many other changes to Downtown Palo Alto since 2017.
E.g., Council’s adoption of a new Housing Element; Council’s recent actions to convert parking lots to new and dense multi -family housing, and Council’s decision in 2019 to stop work on the new Downtown Parking Garage.
The Addendum is also fatally-flawed at the outset by failing to consider the relevant “baseline” conditions. The Addendum wrongly assumes that the conditions on Ramona, under the unlawfully prolonged “temporary” closure is the applicable baseline, rather than the conditions that existed prior to the closure resolution in 2020 or as they existed back in November 2017. The ensuing blockage of the street and the installation of barriers to obstruct vehicular access is another significant change in the relevant pre-2020 baseline condition.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2025
2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
While reliance on an Addendum might be appropriate in some limited circumstances, that is not the case here. The CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §15164) specify that “[a]n addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” (Emph. added.) The 2017 EIR obviously did not consider the notion of converting key “collector streets” such as Ramona or California into “car-free streets” and permanently closing them to through vehicular traffic, much less provide the necessary analysis of those significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan or their likely impacts. Such impacts include impairing and tarnishing the aesthetics and visual context of the historic architecture in the corridor – the Monterey Colonial and Spanish Colonial Revival-style buildings were constructed in the 1920’s and were designed around a street that was intended and built to serve automobile travel and access. The Addendum wrongly asserts (p. 32), without evidentiary support, that the Project will not change the context of the historic resources in the Ramona Street Architectural District,” and fails to provide any alternatives or project-specific mitigation measures.
Other impacts include impairment of air quality, cultural resources, geology, and soils. The Addendum (pp 26-28) admits that “the project” will cause air quality impacts during construction and that the long-term operational impacts of the project will also impact vehicular emissions. It wrongly dismisses those long term impacts without analysis by asserting (p. 28) that there will not be any additional GHG or air quality impacts “since the project is focused on pedestrian/ bicycle improvements.” However, as the Addendum itself admits, inconsistently, the proposed closure of Ramona “will accommodate pedestrians only” and that “no mounted bicycles will be permitted.” The street closure actions will create other unstudied impacts, e.g., circulation, land uses, noise, and public services [impaired accessibility for emergency and fire services]. We are informed that the leadership of the Fire Department has expressed concerns about the proposed blockage of access and limited room for maneuver resulting from the closure. It is doubtful that the City would approve private development of such a narrow (16’ wide) ‘fire lane’ in a high-density, multi-story, area with no turn-around capacity.
“Car-free streets” is a concept that was not even mentioned in the 2017 Plan – and thus why the City now needs to try to amend the Comprehensive Plan to introduce that concept. The impacts of the proposed amendments to the Plan – introducing two new categories of street types, and permanently closing a street that the Circulation Element identifies as a significant collector street, were not identified or studied in the 2017 EIR. These changes are not “minor” or “technical.” The 2017 EIR could not, and did not, analyze the current proposal, or the impacts of such street closures, nor any ‘alternatives’ to the closures, nor attempt to provide relevant and effective “mitigation measures” for the impacts of permanent street closur es as is required under CEQA. (P.R.C. § 21080.5; Guidelines § 15252; Friends, Artists & Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 666, 701 [setting aside Commission’s action because its addendum failed to contain “a complete analysis of mitigation measures or alternatives”].)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2025
2382/099999-0084
21896633.2 a03/07/25
Agencies are instructed to prepare an addendum only for minor technical changes or additions to a project that “‘do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.’ (Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435.)” (OBC Business Owners v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 121 [holding that the City erroneously relied on an addendum to a program EIR because there was insufficient evidence that the new project’s emissions would be consistent with the prior program EIR].) There is simply no substantial evidence in this record supporting the consultant’s conclusory assertion in the Addendum (p. 2) that “the City of Palo Alto [sic] has determined that the proposed changes to the previously approved (2017) Comprehensive plan EIR will not result in potentially- significant impacts that were not previously identified or analyzed ....” The Addendum’s “check the box” findings of ‘no significance’ at Table 4.1 are not supported by any evidence.
If the City persists in pursuing these misguided and counter-productive street closures, a new or supplemental EIR is required – in addition to Vehicle Code compliance.
Conclusion
Based solely on the foregoing legal failings in the proposed actions, the Council should reject the proposed actions. The City failed to conduct reasonable or adequate outreach to the impacted community. Had it done so, the City would have learned that a large majority of the property owners on the impacted section of Ramona Street are strongly opposed to this proposal.
We respectfully request that the Council reject the Agenda items, or at a minimum defer any immediate action and direct Staff to address the Vehicle Code requirements and provide the necessary environmental analysis for the proposed actions.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and concerns.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
David P. Lanferman
DPL:mtr
cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager
([email protected])
Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Community Development ([email protected])
Molly Stump, City Attorney
([email protected])
From: Bret Van de Sande
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: March 10,2025 City Council Action Item 7, Car Free Ramona Street Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 4:39:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
From: Bret Van de Sande
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 4:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: March 10,2025 City Council Action Item 7, Car Free Ramona Street
Dear Mayor and City of Palo Alto Council,
I represent Inspire Real Estate Holdings, LLC the owner of the beautiful 250 University Ave building at the corner of Ramona and University Ave.
Needless to say, our building is greatly affected by your decision tonight. We do NOT support the permanent closure of Ramona and would ask the Mayor and the City Council to vote to reopen this important street immediately for the benefit of our community and the businesses at and near 250 University Ave.
Tonight, you will read and hear many explanations of simple, rational, and factual reasons for the need to reopen Ramona. I do not need to type out all these reasons, but I will place Public Safety be at the top. The fact there is a major garage opening with significant vehicular traffic all day combined with the short Ramona Street still being a primary delivery street and zone for restaurants and businesses, all adds up to an accident waiting to happen. The space is just too busy, too compacted. It’s often very unsafe to try and walk near Ramona or even enter or exit the garage. We need Ramona to be a fully open street and throughfare as it is designed to be.
It’s a hazard as is and it’s just a matter of time till someone gets seriously hurt or worse.
Please listen and apply some common sense to your decision. The City’s last vision like this was Ramona Centennial Plaza!
Thank you,
Bret
Bret van de Sande
VP of Facilities & Operations
Inspire Real Estate Holdings, LLC
250 University Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Goodlands Florida Property Management, LLC
e-mail: [email protected]
Mobile: 408-687-7433
Direct: 650-331-8812
From: Elizabeth Wong
To: Council, City
Subject: DO NOT CLOSE RAMONA STREET
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 4:19:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Elizabeth Wong and I have lived in the amazing country of America for the last 62 years and in awesome Palo Alto for the last 29 years; so, I AM American and I AM Palo Altan. No prejudices, please.
I had the great honor of attending Wharton Graduate School at the University of Pennsylvania and for all of the above I am infinitely grateful to God and Country.
The reason I bring Wharton Graduate up is because one would flunk out of prestigious business schools if one were to recommend closing Ramona Street and this is why:
1. Closing Ramona Streets kills scant and valuable parking. There is no parking downtown period, even now when people mostly work remotely.
2. When you are ensconced in a closed street, "nobody knows your name": your business is hidden, specially to out of towners.
3. There is no vibrancy; instead, we just have disoriented bodies trying to figure out what is happening with the street.
4. We have no bathrooms for the additional bodies roaming the street.
5. City is open to multiple lawsuits related to unfair treatment of property owners AND OF BUSINESS OWNERS.
CLOSING RAMONA MAKES NO SENSE for the reasons above and for the reasons listed so eloquently in Ventana Property Services, Inc. letter to Council dated March 6, 2025.
Please vote to keep Ramona Open or have a city-wide referendum to close or not close Ramona.
Elizabeth Wong
From: Joe Martignetti
To: Council, City
Subject: March 10, 2025 City Council Action Item 7, Car Free Ramona Street Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:56:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and City Council,
On March 10, 2025, City Council will consider the adoption of resolutions amending the Comprehensive Plan to reclassify portions of Ramona Street and California Avenue as Car-Free- Streets and closing the streets to vehicular traffic. I am writing to encourage the City Council to allow Ramona Street to remain open to vehicular traffic to support the retail vibrancy of this downtown corridor.
Over the last 45 years, I have been active in various aspects of commercial real estate including acquisitions, development and property management in the San Francisco Bay Area. While my expertise is primarily in mixed-use infill commercial properties, I also have experience in retail shopping centers, multi-family and single-family housing, office, R&D and industrial properties. I have worked with national, regional and local tenants in these endeavors and have gained an appreciation for what works and what does not work to support various businesses. I am an owner and my company manages commercial assets in downtown Palo Alto, specifically 261 Hamilton/555 Ramona/581 Ramona and 541 Ramona along the proposed car free zone.
Retail requires high visibility with easy access to parking and retail support services. Retail benefits from a diversity of services including a mix of restaurants, retail like uses, financial and business to business services. Signage and storefront visibility are essential. Retail requires both pedestrian and vehicular traffic past their storefront for exposure and customer awareness.
The closing of Ramona Street is discouraged for the following reasons:
1. Safety. Only one half of Ramona Street can be car free since access to the 250 University garage must be maintained. Daily access to the garage is hindered by temporarily parked delivery trucks and three-point-turns by motorists unknowingly getting stuck at a dead-end street but not wanting to enter the 250 University garage ramp. This constant activity creates conflicts especially with pedestrian sidewalk safety. Good planning for car free zones should minimize these conflicts by creating boundaries at major intersections, not mid-block locations.
2. Insufficient Size of Trade Zone
. Unlike pedestrian car free malls which continue for a number of consecutive blocks, the proposed car free zone on Ramona Street is too small a trade area and positioned as an isolated retail island. The proposed car free zone is disconnected from the vitality of University Avenue and thus an isolated zone.
But for the benefit provided to a few restaurants along Ramona Street, support retail and business services will leave. Warby Parker and other adjacent soft good retailers have expressed economic hardships and disappointment with the current conditions of Ramona Street. They will likely seek to relocate to other locations.
3. Parking. Retailers and their customers need easy access to parking. The removal of street parking along Ramona hinders retail vibrancy. Also, the closure of Ramona Street at Hamilton Avenue prevents vehicular traffic from easily accessing the 250 University public parking from Hamilton. Thus, the 250 University garage becomes a remote destination only accessible from a typically congested University Avenue.
4. Vehicle and Pedestrian Visibility
. Retail requires vehicle and pedestrian visibility.
Closing Ramona Street restricts car drive-by traffic which is a primary requirement for healthy retail sectors.
5. Ramona Street Architectural District
. Ramona Street between University Avenue
and Hamilton Avenue is listed on the National Register of Historic Places under the United States Department of Interior. The designation was bestowed to this corridor to recognize the 1920’s buildings with Monterey Colonial and Spanish Colonial Revival architectural styles. The District Nomination Form, certified by the State Historic Preservation Officer on February 10, 1986, specifically highlights that “many of the buildings were designed for an owner’s specific use (i.e., dress shops, savings and loan, housewares, professional offices, hotel)” which established the neighborhood fabric for the area. By closing Ramona Street, the very types of retail and retail like businesses that created the neighborhood fabric will no longer deem the corridor a viable location.
I strongly encourage the City Council to reconsider and allow Ramona Street to return to the open street, vibrant, retail corridor with easy access for vehicles and pedestrians that will support the business fabric under which it was first created.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Martignetti, Jr.
Property Owner
[email protected]
Office: 650.847.2000
Fax: 650.847.2001
DRE License No. 01116935
Ventana Property Services, Inc.
975 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
www.ventanaps.com
DRE License No. 01129571
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it.