Agoura Hills council continues debate on e‑bike rules for parks and sidewalks

Agoura Hills city staff presented Ordinance 26‑485 on March 11 proposing a new municipal code chapter to regulate electric mobility devices, including e‑bikes, on city property and in parks. The proposal would ban operation of these devices on sidewalks, parks, recreational trails and athletic fields on Agoura Hills property and create a penalty structure that begins with infractions and escalates for repeat violations.

City staff said the proposed chapter would reference the California Vehicle Code, define device types and unsafe operation, and authorize inspections by officers stopped lawfully. “The new chapter also regulates the operation of these devices, banning the operations of these devices from public sidewalks…any park, public athletics field, athletic sports court,” staff stated during the presentation. The draft ordinance cites recent state laws (AB1096, AB875 and AB544) that require device labeling, permit removal of some bikes when operated by under‑age riders and set equipment rules.

Why it matters: officials said e‑bikes have increased in public spaces and parks and that higher speeds and heavier e‑bikes raise collision risks for pedestrians and other trail users. Staff noted a recent programmatic timeline of subcommittee and council discussions dating back to October 2025 and outlined an outreach and education plan that could include school workshops, signage in parks and a regional brochure distributed in partnership with Lost Hills sheriff deputies.

During a lengthy question-and-answer period, Mayor Pro Tem Tim Klein Lopez asked whether the city’s proposed regulations would impose minimum age or licensing requirements; staff replied that state law—not local ordinance—governs most roadway rules, and that Class 3 e‑bikes require an operator age of 16 or older under recent state law. Sergeant Erenss of Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station described enforcement realities: officers avoid high‑speed pursuits, may perform traffic stops and are exploring options such as following riders back to residences or creating regional outreach materials for schools and parents.

Resident testimony and council concerns: Rachel Spalding, who identified herself as a former school crossing guard, described daily near‑misses at school crosswalks and urged "robust enforcement" and parent education. “I found no help,” she said, recounting unsafe riding near children and strollers.

Council members debated penalty design and juvenile consequences for repeat violations. The staff draft specifies first and second violations within one year as infractions (fines aligned with state limits) and a third violation escalates to a misdemeanor punishable under the municipal code (the draft describes penalties up to $1,000 or up to six months in county jail). Several council members supported strong penalties to deter repeat offenders and robust education for families; others sought to remove imprisonment from the local penalty schedule and to require or prioritize juvenile diversion and parent participation in education programs instead.

Council direction and next steps: the council voted 5–0 to continue the item and directed staff to return with options that better define enforcement procedures (including how notices or administrative citations would be handled), explore mandatory in‑person diversion or education for juveniles and parents in lieu of imprisonment, and pursue regional coordination with neighboring cities and the school district. Staff said it would also present budget and program proposals for a public education campaign and signage, including a possible $5,000 start‑up allocation for recreation‑center workshops.

The draft ordinance remains under consideration; staff will return with refined enforcement language, options for juvenile diversion and recommended outreach materials and timelines.