Healdsburg a Bump in the Road for Bike Coalition’s Vulnerable User Ordinance

The Vulnerable User’s Ordinance, presented to the City Council by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition in February, finally reached a vote of the Healdsburg City Council Monday night.

The council, meeting without their fifth member, Mayor Susan Jones, could not reach a clear decision on whether to adopt the ordinance or not.

The ordinance was submitted for staff analysis after its introduction by Council Member Tom Chambers, when it was presented by the Bicycle Coalition. At that time it was sent to Police Chief Kevin Burke, whose testimony opened the evaluation of the ordinance.

Chief Burke, speaking extemporaneously for the most part without notes or a script, and (most unusually) without a PowerPoint demonstration, summarized the ordinance that was presented to him, unchanged by Council, from the one presented by the Bicycle Coalition. “What’s different about this measure is it’s a 100% civic ordinance, without criminal penalty,” said Burke.

After looking at the statistics offered in the measure itself, Burke said he was “fairly comfortable in stating we don’t have the type of incidents [in Healdsburg] that have been reported” to the Bicycle Coalition, though he said the records of the Healdsburg Police Department do not allow a seach for such incidents.

He called it a “purely policy” measure, not making a recommendation but saying the measure made sense “only if you want a city code allowing people to sue one another.”

“Virtually every prohibition is already prohibited in civic law,” he added, and he said that the financial impact of the measure would be negligible, since such cases were unlikely to be brought.

It was pointed out that the punitive dimension of the proposed ordinance allowed for “treble damages” and lawyer’s fees to “give it some bite,” as city attorney David Warner described the addition of punitive terms.

So far the City of Sebastopol – along with several other cities outside of Sonoma County, such as Los Angeles, Sunnyvale and Washington, D.C. – has passed this or similar measures. The Town of Windsor rejected the ordinance last month.

The Sonoma County Supervisors passed a reworked version of the measure, that pulled out treble damages, and also eliminated the definition of an unsafe distance to a cyclist as three feet. This was changed to “a reasonable distance” in the County version.

One of the hesitations expressed by several City Council members was that this was not a problem in Healdsburg, but in outlying county areas such as Skaggs Springs Road, the Bohemian Highway, Petaluma Hill Road and Chalk Hill Road.

Gary Helfrich, executive director of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, spoke from the audience in advocacy of the issue, pointing out that its passage would define harassment, which is currently not defined, and thus reduce frivolous suits.  But his primary argument was the City of Healdsburg’s “brand” – if Healdsburg wants to be perceived as a bike-friendly community, one that has no tolerance for harassment of cyclists or pedestrians, passing this ordinance would make a statement.

Also speaking from the public, Richard Cafferata, a produce truck driver, said “Westside Road could be Blood Alley,” warning of inevitable accidents from cyclists riding two and three abreast, and suggesting cyclists need to learn “more respect” for cars.

He also outlined several steps that could be taken to regulate cyclists, including requiring registration and license plates, having insurance “like drivers and everyone else,” and becoming educated on the rules of the road.

“Give ‘em a book on the rules of the road,” he said. “Understand it, and abide by it.”

His suggestions were a common point of general agreement, although the Vulnerable Users Ordinance does not address any of them.

A member of the Bicycle Coalition, Rich Buttarini of Healdsburg, pointed out that bicycles were a part of daily life in Healdsburg, and since they were an important part of our community, “For our economic interest we have in Healdsburg, it’s very important to take a strong position” in favor of cyclist protection.

When the argument returned to Council, however, a split between members was immediately clear.

Council Member Sean McCaffery inexplicably suggested that passing the ordinance would make cyclists “less cautious and aware,” thinking they were protected by it.

“People have to realize that it’s dangerous on a bike,” McCaffery said. “Passing this sends a wrong message that you don’t have to watch out for yourself.”

Council Member Gary Plass was even more critical, saying that the issue was one of education on both sides, not “creating another layer of bureaucracy” with a set of laws that are not needed. “There’s no reason to be proactive when we don’t have a problem.”

Plass also read extensively from an unidentified attorney he consulted who was not in favor of the measure. He finished with a statement to that effect that since Healdsburg is already a bicycle friendly community, and there’s no need for this ordinance.

(Technically the term “Bike Friendly” is awarded to communities that meet a certain set of criteria and pass the evaluation of the League of American Bicyclists. Healdsburg has failed to attain this status, though the neighboring City of Sonoma has.)

If the arguments, such as they were, became confused, the parliamentary motions that followed did little to clear the air. Since the measure was introduced as New Business, it could have passed on to the Consent Calendar for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting (the next one is scheduled for June 3).

But no one made a motion to reject the measure – Plass moved to “not proceed with this tonight” (clarification on the wording of his motion should soon become available in the City Council minutes)  which failed on a 1-3 vote.

After discussion, a subsequent movement was made by Council Member Tom Chambers to send the measure to the city Transportation Commission to evaluate it against the Sonoma County’s similar but not identical measure. The movement had some trouble finding a second, but when McCaffrey seconded the vote was 2-2 split.

Technically a 2-2 vote means the movement has failed, but since the Council had adopted no clear motion with no clear vote, the question of the ordinance’s viability remained moot.

City Manager Marjie Pettus reminded the Council that this confusion was a question of establishing Council protocol, and it has come up before. “There has been no clear decision, and the council failed to send it to the transportation commission.

“It’s up to council to decide what to do.”

Finally, acting mayor Jim Wood requested and received a motion to reconsider the ordinance at the next council meeting where a five-member Council could be called to order. “We might has well get a motion passed,” said Wood. “I have motion sickness.”

Chambers introduced, McCaffrey seconded, and it passed with a 3-1 vote, with Plass a firm “No!” against keeping the ordinance alive.

“And that is how sausage is made,” said Wood, before the council moved on to the next order of New Business.

Follow on Twitter | Like on Facebook | Sign up for daily email | Start a blog on Patch!