Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Mobility Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calabasas introduces ordinance to regulate e‑bikes and scooters in parks and trails; council advances first reading 5‑0
Summary
Council introduced Ordinance No. 2026‑423 to regulate electric mobility devices in parks, trails and other public spaces (excluding public roadways), adding enforcement tools for repeated unsafe behavior; council directed staff to include amendments about private property/signage and juvenile enforcement and passed the ordinance introduction 5‑0 for a second reading March 11.
The Calabasas City Council introduced an ordinance on Feb. 25 to regulate electric mobility devices — commonly described as e‑bikes and motorized scooters — in parks, trails and similar non‑road public areas, and the council voted to advance the ordinance on first reading with amendments by a 5‑0 vote.
Public works staff framed the ordinance as safety‑focused and not a ban. "This isn't about banning devices. It's about setting reasonable boundaries," the department’s presenter said, describing the rules as aimed at reducing conflicts between faster, often younger riders and pedestrians, curbing damage to turf in parks and giving enforcement authorities clearer authority in non‑road spaces.
Key provisions presented include a definition of covered devices, limits on where certain classes of electric mobility devices can operate (for example, prohibitions on equestrian, hiking and recreation trails unless posted otherwise as discussed during council), authority to address unsafe behavior in parks and parking lots, and an administrative enforcement structure with graduated fines (infractions at $100, $200 and $500 tiers and misdemeanor options up to $1,000 where warranted). Staff emphasized that operation on public roadways remains governed by the California Vehicle Code and that ADA‑compliant mobility devices are not affected.
Public commenter Ryan Embry praised the effort and suggested clarifications in wording and warned that requiring city enforcement in private parking lots could impose an unfunded burden on the city and sheriff’s department. Council members across the bench strongly supported the measure as overdue and focused on education and parent engagement. Council asked staff to refine the draft language so the ordinance would clearly allow enforcement on private property where owners post signage permitting municipal enforcement, to include an "unless posted otherwise" exception for certain trails and to clarify discretion and penalties for juvenile operators.
Council member Alicia said she had pressed the city to take action on this issue for some time: "I've been asking for this for a really long time... It's hard to witness what's happening with these ebikes," she said, describing reckless riding and close calls. Staff and the city attorney explained enforcement practice: officers will generally start with education and parent notification for juveniles and have discretion to cite infractions or misdemeanor charges depending on severity; vehicle confiscation and parent pickup were cited as an enforcement outcome in some misdemeanor cases.
After the discussion and agreed amendments, the council introduced Ordinance No. 2026‑423 (adding Chapter 10.24 to Title 10) and approved a CEQA exemption. The motion to introduce with the discussed amendments passed on a 5‑0 vote; staff said the second reading is scheduled for March 11.
