The Santa Clara County Special Events Ordinance currently up for reconsideration. The current ordinance is set to expire at the end of this calendar year. County staff and a VTA B/PAC subcommittee are evaluating how it has worked, whether any changes should be made, and whether it should be renewed.
If you have any direct experience with this ordinance, or if you have any suggestions about how it should be improved, the VTA B/PAC would like to hear from you. The ordinance may be found at http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=13790&stateID=5&statenam.... The relevant section is Division B3 Chapter VII.
Leave your comments below and SVBC will send them to the B/PAC.
Comments
djconnel
November 25, 2011 - 3:23pm
Permalink
I am interested in how this
I am interested in how this law differs from the Woodside law which was rejected on infringing on basic rights to use public roadways by the Woodside City Attorney several years ago.
From the code:
(2) is fairly obvious. It involves inhibiting access of the road to other users.
(3) seems bizarre, but I suppose if you're setting up rest stops on the public road, that's a use of public space. If the "rest stops" are on private land or off the public road, this has no relevance.
(1) is the tricky one. "an assembly which is to travel in unison". What's that mean? Obviously Woodside tried to ban group rides like the Noon Ride and Spectrum, which are groups of riders who each individually decide to ride with the others. There's no way that can be made any more illegal than any other heavy traffic on the roads. So obviously the word "in unison" was chosen with care. Still, this section is perilously close to infringing on basic access. There are plenty of group rides which exceed 50 riders, and it's established this can't be banned any more than the county can ban rush hour on 101.
It all seems very fishy to me and it seems like a court case waiting to happen, one the county will lose.
MikeOnBike
November 25, 2011 - 4:45pm
Permalink
The key is further below
The key is further below where they define "major" and "minor" special events, and where they specify what types of events require permits. That's where complying with traffic rules is another deciding factor.
The logic is a bit messy and redundant due to lots of rewrites, but the bottom line is that a permit is generally only required for events that don't comply with traffic rules and/or require road closures. In other words, parades and races.
A permit is also required for "encroachments" on public property, like directional signs and arrows. Road closures and encroachments are fairly standard conditions covered by a typical "parade" ordinance.
The tricky part is century rides with over 500 people, even if they comply with traffic rules, but I think those would typically require a permit anyhow due to encroachments on public property (directional signs and arrows, etc.)
And in any case, this is only for events that use unincorporated roads, not those that are within city limits.
djconnel
November 25, 2011 - 5:07pm
Permalink
Most excellent! Thanks,
Most excellent! Thanks, Mike!
Still not sure how Stanford football games qualify, as more than 500 people are assembled then travel in unison on the public roads. So I think even the 500 participant limit is open to question. But with regard to my case it's substantially fewer than 500 people.
MikeOnBike
November 27, 2011 - 8:53am
Permalink
I would expect big events
I would expect big events like football games already required permits.
Add new comment