The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has a proposed Special Event Ordinance on their June 22 agenda for discussion at 10am.
This ordinance threatens the existence of San Jose Bike Party, as well as any rides of more than 50 riders! It’s overreaching and possibly prohibited by the CVC.
The Silicon Valley Bike Coalition has posted its position on this issue, and have setup a Facebook event with information as well. We urge you to read the proposal and SVBC’s position statement, then take action.
Some of the ways you can help:
- Write, e-mail, or call your County Supervisor. SmartVoter.org has their contact information.
- Show up at the Board of Supervisors meeting, June 22 at 10am, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 70 West Hedding St, San Jose, CA.
- Spread the word! Blog, tweet, Facebook, etc!
Update
At the June 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Supervisors voted unanimously to table the matter until August 2010. It will go back to committee for revision. The video from the meeting is available on the SCC Public Portal.
A big thanks to all those that attended the meeting, contacted their Supervisors, and spread the word. Hopefully the ordinance will be reasonble and consistent with the CVC when it comes up again in August.
ryan
June 21, 2010
Does anyone know how serious of a ‘threat’ this actual ordinance proposal is? From my reading of it, it seems like a joke.
1. It’s supported by a fringe group of NIMBYs in a valley on the other side of Mt. Hamiton’s observatory, far far away from the 2 million people who live in our county.
2. It’s in reaction to 3 or 4 bike races that pass through there 1x a year each.
3. It’s specifically illegal under California Vehicle Code since bikes are considered traffic and county governments have no right to regulate traffic.
4. It’s the equivalent of asking cars who participate in rush hour traffic to get permits.
5. Don’t the people in San Antonio Valley realize that our county supervisors have better things to do?
ryan
June 21, 2010
This ordinance is more of a stab at the sport of cycling than it is at Bike Party itself. It applies to unincorporated roads of Santa Clara County, some of the finest spots for road biking. Bike Party would hardly be affected (in my reading of the law). We operate mainly on incorporated streets. We also have a good amount of city officials who support our ride and take place in it. These officials hold sway in community and transportation issues. Point being, we have more friends than enemies.
That said, please show up to the hearing on this. Bicycles need not be discriminated against because non-cyclists think we’re ‘weird.’
biketurtle
June 21, 2010
Ryan – while I think you’re right that this ordinance, even if it passed, would not affect SJBP directly, it would certainly set a bad precedent and could encourage copycat legislation. While it seems to me that it would violate the California Vehicle Code or at least be unenforcable under it, it would be painful and expensive for all sides to have to take the matter to court.
Incidentally, I don’t see how this could work. If I were to organize some sort of group ride for 49 people, what authority would I have to tell two people following our ride to bug off? “You can’t ride on this public street at the same time my group is going through. Stop using this public road, we were here first”
All that being said, it makes sense for bicyclists to make a good showing at this hearing, so that the County Supervisors feel our presence as citizens of this county.
ryan
June 21, 2010
Bike Turtle – I 100% agree, especially with the bad precedent and the importance for a strong showing at the hearing (I am 95% certain to be there). I just wanted to point out the absurdity of it and how I believe that even if it did pass, it would be completely un-enforcable. It just sucks that we have to get put down like this (cyclists as a whole, that is).
Richard Masoner
June 21, 2010
There are fairly large unincorporated islands scattered throughout the urban parts of Santa Clara County, including several hundreds of acres within San Jose. In San Jose, for example, significant sections of Alum Rock Road, McKee Road, and White Road are County roads. There are a couple of other weird chunks off of Bascom and Hamilton. These are kind of on the edges of town, but SJBP has passed by all of these locationbs.
The County is also responsible for the County Expressway system.
I agree it’s unlikely the Sheriff would do anything about a group crossing across a section of incorporated county road, but it’s better to kill this stuff off now rather than complain about it 10 years from now when a new administration kicks in and decides to enforce the law.
JustinT
June 21, 2010
Good Point Bike Turtle. how would they enforce that?
Well, Knowing the way the authorities operate in these parts, Im sure they would find a way. If not put a stop to it, they would make it hard enuf for us that it wouldn’t be worth all the trouble. It would create alot of tension to an activity that has such positive intentions. be it SJBP or AMGEN
The thing is AMGEN has such large sponserships they would work around it with insur., and permits. things like SJBP would fail bc we dont have that. The spirit of BP would diminish.
the hundreds or so residents East of Mt Hamilton that are complaining shouldn’t dictate the thousands that go to Bike Party each month, or hinder the businesses that are growing bc of the community exposure activities like this gives. the problem is that those hundred will actually show up to the vote where as our thousands won’t bother.
Assert your rights and do whatever you can. vote/express/spread the word. Dont let apathy ruin our rights.
scott
June 21, 2010
you all make great points and richard, you make a great point of why it’s really important to step up TOMORROW (Tuesday, June 22nd) and stop this goofy ordinance, regulation or whatever they’re calling this.
squirtdad
June 21, 2010
I hope everone commenting actually read the whole ordinance. As for commennts about oranizning a ride there are exceptions for events of 50-200 who follow the rules of the road and pre anounce. While it will affect cyclists, it is not specifically written only for bicylists or even moving events.
I have requested clarification on the motivation behind this from Supervisor Ken Yeager (who might be a sjbp rider)
biketurtle
June 21, 2010
squirtdad, true (I’m assuming you are referring to the exception in B3-148b). I should amend my earlier question, but I think it still applies. If I’m organizing a ride, and I tell 199 people about it, what right to I have to keep anyone else from using the road when I am? Can I be cited if another group of people decides to follow us? I didn’t invite them.
Community Activitist
June 21, 2010
I called the County about the ordinance & they said that it is set to be approved. Thus it is critical for everyone to call their Supervisor immediately & state their concern.
Beyond the obvious impact on San Jose Bike Party, there are some specific legal items you may wish to highlight:
Transparency and Accountability
Although the transmittal implies that key stakeholders were consulted, it does not publically delineate who they were, when they met and what they specifically thought of the impact of the proposed ordinance change
Universality
On the surface it appears that the application process and fees proposed are reasonable and equitable, but in light of the what must undoubtedly be a ordinance could place and unequal and unfair burden on:
A. the coordinators of small events and no cost to low revenue producing events as compared to large and mid to high revenue producing events.
B. low income communities as compared to working class, professional class and investor class communities.
C. Small (1-2 event/year) non-profits as compared to large (multi-event/year) non-profit and for profit events
Indivisible
The ordinance disconnects social, cultural and economic rights from the political and civil rights
ryan
June 21, 2010
I just e-mailed all of our supervisors. I included a bit about myself, including how long I’ve been a county resident. For Dave Cortese, I mentioned that I voted for him at one point. I figured this would add a personal touch to the letters. Here is what I said:
I am a 27 year resident of Santa Clara County, an educator, community advocate, and avid cyclist. I am writing this afternoon to ask you not to support Ordinance No. NS-502.8, which is being discussed this Tuesday, June 22nd, at the Board of Supervisors hearing.
This ordinance appears like it would do harm to county residents’ efforts to create green and sustainable living by placing restrictions on how many people can ride a bicycle in the same area at one time. While cities and communities work toward create bicycle-friendly communities, this ordinance would hinder that as it appears that anyone riding in a cluster of bikes of 50 or more people require special permits when on county roads. This does not seem consistent with the California Vehicle Code which treats bicycles the same as motorized traffic. Would the special permits also apply to cars in rush hour? Would it be illegal for me to ride home from work on Almaden Expressway or an unincorporated stretch of Bascom Avenue if there happened to be 49 other people doing the same thing? This ordinance will hinder the efforts of community and environmental groups who seek a more bike and pedestrian-accessible and sustainable community.
I urge you to send back Ordinance No. NS-502.8 and request it to be redrawn with simplicity and clarification, especially in regard to the definition of a special event. I also urge you to request that the ordinance be made consistent with the California Vehicle Code, which makes no limitations on traffic on roadways – bicycle or motorized – granted their intent is to follow traffic laws.
Sincerely,
-I urge everyone else to do the same and to show up at the hearing tomorrow morning.
Community Activitist
June 21, 2010
Here are some more problems with the ordinance (as noted by callers to the County)
Does the County manage roads other than rural roads? For example is the County responsible for expressways that connect various Santa Clara County cities? Why isn’t there a publically posted map of roads managed by Santa Clara County?
What are the days and hours and location for obtaining a permit per this ordinance? Is anyone concerned about the fact that the Office of Roads and Airports Permit office is open on Monday – Friday from 8:00AM to 4:30PM and closed on Holidays? How will these hours accommodate “spontaneous” events held during the evening hours, on weekends and holidays?
How does the County intend to manage concerns about burden of costs associated with the proposed fees for permits and liability insurance for small event coordinators vs large event coordinators? It would appear that small event coordinators will carry a more significant share of the burden which will lead to a significant curtailment of events for small groups.
Why didn’t the County consult members/leaders of the neighborhood associations that typically host “block parties” and human and civil rights communities that are concerned with coordination of “expressive” and “spontaneous” events as key stakeholders in addition to the VTA’s B-PAC and its subcommittee?
What penalties are being proposed by the County for failing to obtain a permit?
Katie
June 21, 2010
I agree with BikeTurtle and Ryan, this ordinance is not a direct threat to what we do, but I think it is worth fighting to keep this off the books as a precedent. I’m nervous that this is a first step towards regulation of Bike Party by authorities who currently have no legal way of shutting us down.
I also emailed all 5 of the supervisors and got this response from Don Cage:
“This ord. is for notification of an event. People need to know when these events occur so they can at least get out of their drive ways. If there is no road closure you are OK. Don”
It looks like he could be a “yes” vote. I’m also confused by his response since one of the definitions of a “Major Special Event” under the ordinance is “any event on a Road involving more than 500 people.” This does not mention a requirement for road closures and sounds like Bike Party would fall into this category…
biketurtle
June 21, 2010
Katie – if that’s the intent of the ordinance, then it should be worded as such. What Commisioner Gage states seems to fit Section B3-150 (San Antonion Valley “Good Neighbor” Standards). But there is still the rest of the ordinance that goes beyond that. If he thinks that the ordinance only requires notifications when there are no road closures, then he should be made aware of what the language in the ordinance actually stipulates so that he can vote accordingly.
A few other notes that might be useful for people doing research on this. The CVC section in question is Section 21100 and can be found at: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21100.htm
I have a question in regards to Section B3-147(3). Permits required:
(3) If the event is either: (i) a parade, march, procession,
demonstration, or assembly that consists of fifty or more persons and
which either is likely to impede, obstruct, impair, or require closure
of a Road or does not comply with normal or usual traffic regulations
or controls; (ii) requires the placement of a tent, canopy, or other
temporary structure on the Road; or, (iii) involves more than 500
people then the procedures for obtaining a Special Event Permit for a
Major Special Event shall be followed.
If I read through the or and and clauses of this, it appears that an assembly that consiste of fifty or more persons and is likely to impede a Road would require a permit. Would this not apply to school events, movies, church services, weddings, etc? How is “impede” defined? I’ve asked these questions in my e-mails to the Supervisors.
Another research note, the VTA link (http://www.vta.org/inside/boards/committee_advisory/bpac/agendas_minutes/2010/06_jun/10_ro.pdf – thanks Richard Masoner for putting the link in comments on the SVBC site) to the proposed ordinance is searchable, while the one on the Board of Supervisors site is not. I found this version more useful.
Paul Raymond
June 21, 2010
Email Sent to Supervisors! I will be at the meeting at 9:30am on Tuesday.
To: don.gage@bos.sccgov.org; George.Shirakawa@bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org
Subject: Please Support to Continue The SJ Bike Party Ride!
Greetings Supervisors,
Please support SJ Bike Party Ride that takes place only once a month.
By supporting this ride, it reduces our carbon foot print on that Friday
night. If an ordinance is passed, it will provide a message to the community
that County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisor Members are anti-bicyclists and
do not support alternative methods of transportation to reduce green house
emissions and global warming.
Also, share the road, same number cyclists have just as much right to road
access as motor vehicles. This ride’s purpose is not to block traffic
like critical mass rides in San Francisco, that purposely tries to disrupt vehicle
traffic. Ride also lets the community know that their is alternative transportation
methods exists with bicycles.
These rides do not close traffic to motor vehicle traffic.
Thank you for your support!
Paul Raymond
[moderator/bt: removed e-mail address to prevent harvesting by spammers]
Richard Masoner
June 21, 2010
@Squirt wrote:
“While it will affect cyclists, it is not specifically written only for bicylists or even moving events.”
The original version two / three years was written specifically for cycling events. After cyclists threw a fit about it, the language was intentionally obfuscated so that it doesn’t appear to target cyclists, but large cycling events are indeed the intended target of this audience.
I’m disappointed in Don Gage’s response; I was counting him as a “no” vote on this. That’s discouraging news.
david
June 21, 2010
@Community Activist or whoever:
The county’s roads include all expressways and all streets that are not in a city. Such communities not in a city are visible on all paper maps! Also visible at Yahoo maps (not Google), at a zoom level of 4 or more notches below the “+” button.
Parts of these communities have over the years been slowly devoured by their neighboring cities, but they still have some of their identities left:
Alum Rock
the East hills
east of Stanford
Cambrian Park
Burbank
neighborhood between Fruitvale and Dry Crk Rd.
Loyola (by Los Altos)
RE: biketurtle’s quote of sec. B3-147(3):
Hmm, you shouldn’t be able to say that a regular ol’ group ride is covered by: “impede, obstruct, impair, or require closure of a Road or does not comply with normal or usual traffic regulations
or controls.” California’s traffic regulations allow for bike transportation in the right lane, so you can’t say that state law is not “normal or usual”! Now, a race with road closures is something different.
BUT I do think that the part about 500+ people is targeting group rides like SJBP, even if not intentionally. Thing is, I really do not see the County going after Bike Party. How? Sheriff’s deputies scrambling around knocking us down in the street? The Sheriff’s Office is more decent and intelligently-operated than the SJ police, so I don’t see that happening. Busting the organizers? Then we will just not have officially-acknowledged organizers. But yeah, it would be too P.R.-retarded for the County to go after BP.
it looks like the “more than 500 people” trigger is included precisely to target bicyclists.
LP
June 22, 2010
If you need to look up who you’re Board of Supervisor is, go here: http://eservices.sccgov.org/district/home.do
Enter in your address and it will tell you what your supervising district is.
LP
June 22, 2010
You can look up your district/supervisor here: http://eservices.sccgov.org/district/home.do
biketurtle
June 22, 2010
For those of you who aren’t able to attend the meeting in person, you can see it on the live webcast. Find the “Board Meeting Webcasts” link in the Quicklinks box to the right of the Agenda.
Richard Masoner
June 22, 2010
FYI, Supervisors decided to table this until August.
ryan
June 22, 2010
Thanks everyone who went to this. (I couldn’t leave work in time to ride there in time).
Community Activitist
June 22, 2010
Meeting Report
Some 35 individuals testified. 32 represented the biking community and three represented residents in the East Foothills above Quimby Road.
The vote on Ordinance No NS-502.8 was delayed until the first meeting in August based on the following:
Cortese, Yeager and Kniss recognized a need for further work on the ordinance in the following areas:
1. There was concern the Office of Roads and Airports did not have in place hours of business and procedures that would address the need to obtain a permit for Expressive Activity or Spontaneous events
2. There was a lack of support from the biking community, including the representatives that served as key stake holders during meetings with county staff
3. There was concern that the County may be exceeding its authority by stipulating compliance with rules of the road as a criteria for whether or not a permit was required.
4. There was concern that one of the criteria for a permit was linked to an event’s need for tents, porta potties, etc, in order to adequately serve participants
5. There was no discussion at all about freedom of speech rights being linked to permit requirements and fees. There seems to be an assumption that the proposed use of the Jim McEntee Plaza and the historical use of city streets would address the majority of concerns for human and civil rights activists. But again human and civil rights activists were not included as stakeholders, so I am not sure of their response other than the questions that I received yesterday and forwarded to Junaid’s attention.
Following extensive community feedback and Supervisor discussion Gage moved for the item to be acted on then modified his motion to delay the vote until August based on a recommendation from Cortese. Kniss 2nd both motions. The later motion delaying a vote was carried unanimously.
LaVics
June 22, 2010
Good job community activist! I was unable to make this one, but I do plan on voicing my opinion in August. Do you know the date? It’d be nice to know in advance to ask for the day off.
Steve
June 22, 2010
A representative from CHP made, by far, the most disconcerting statements. She didn’t mention Bike Party by name, but alluded to large groups of cyclists riding on a Friday night, breaking traffic laws, and drinking alcohol. She was in favor of this law so it could be used as a tool to help crack down on this type of activity. Now, I don’t know which roads we ride on that fall under CHPs jurisdiction, but I would assume other law enforcement agencies are also on board.
Bike Party was represented. Two riders stood up and made statements on our behalf. I thought I saw the supervisors perk up their ears when the first BP rider spoke. I think we may have been overlooked in the broader discussion. But based on the wide geographic applicability and the statements by the CHP officer, there seems to be a behind-the-scenes effort to sneak something in that could be used to shut Bike Party down.
The residents of the San Antonio Valley have some serious and legitimate complaints that are the main focus of this ordinance Lots of people have been working on this for a long time. There is no chance this ordinance will not be passed in some form. A vote has been postponed until the August meeting to clarify some of the definitions and double check some legal issues with respect to the CA vehicle code. So there is one more chance to influence how this law is written. The SVBC, BPAC, and other groups are working things from their end, but their interests don’t completely overlap with ours. I THINK BIKE PARTY WOULD BE BEST SERVED IF THE LAW WERE LIMITED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE THREE ROADS LEADING INTO THE VALLEY. We don’t ride out there anyway and that gives the valley residents what they want.
Supervisor Gage of district 1 represents the San Antonio Valley area and is fully in favor of the ordinance. Supervisor Cortese of district 3 was the most vocal critic of the present draft but generally supports the idea. The other three supervisors were mostly silent.
Keep up the letter writing!
[moderator/tr: Steve is referring to the San Antonio (San Antone) Valley]
Tian
June 22, 2010
I was there listening to the whole hearing. One thing that needs to be said is that those rural people are quite frustrated with bicyclists that won’t let them pass. We can diffuse that by using the turnouts to let cars pass us when we are using their roads and it’s appropriate. Please spread the word to your athletic hill climbing sport biking friends! The message is: “If you’re being tailgated by a car, use the turnouts to let them pass.”
biketurtle
June 22, 2010
I agree that bicyclists and drivers should be considerate of each other. I’ve never been to that part of the county myself, so I can’t comment on why (or if) bicyclists aren’t using the turnouts. Perhaps someone more familiar with the area can enlighten us.
While I’m sympathetic to the residents in that area, I take issue with anyone who claims that the bicyclists on public roads are using “their” roads. Those roads belong to all of us, not just the people who live nearby.
It is more appropriate to state this in terms of slow moving vehicles, including cars, bicycles or tractors, needing to give way to faster moving vehicles where turnouts are available. That’s considerate and is also required by CVC 21656 when five or more vehicles are backed up behind.
If you are following this issue and were unable to attend the meeting in person, I do recommend taking the time to watch the archived video.
biketurtle
June 22, 2010
One more thing. In response to my own question in @15 above, I think I misinterpreted the (confusing) section B3-147(a)(3) of the ordinance. I now think that section B3-147(a)(3) applies only when section B3-147(a) is applicable, which concerns only events that take place on a Road.
So most school events, movies, church services, weddings wouldn’t be affected.
Paul Raymond
June 23, 2010
I attended the meeting of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on Tuesday June 22, 2010. I spoke on behalf of the SJBPR with a written statement. I am very upset the way Board handle the ordinance discussion. They had long discussions with the authors of the ordinance. There was a lot of statements between them that I thought were distorted and we had not chance to make any rebuttal statements at that moment. We were allowed to make statements and I felt that the Supervisors basically blew us off.
ALSO I AM VERY UPSET THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT AT THIS MEETING FROM SJBPR OR SVBC groups. HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE MORE SUPPORT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. WE NEED TO JAM THE CHAMBER TO SUPPORT OUR CAUSE.
I believe the county is circumventing the California Vehicle Law stating there is no limit to bicycle traffic on country and using the disguise of stating a special event permit is required to allow a ride.
Also afraid in the end that a permit fee for an SJBPR Special Event will be to high or they will come up with a “baloney” reason not to grant one.
SJPBR committee should schedule a meeting to discuss what course of we can take on this issue. Also please write to the Board of Supervisor members expressing your views on this very important issue. Email addresses below:
don.gage@bos.sccgov.org; George.Shirakawa@bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org