San Mateo County Board of Supervisors scope e-bike ordinance

Proposed by supervisors Jackie Speier and Ray Mueller, who both held a town hall on the topic in February, the ordinance intended to take a step toward addressing the problem. But as a burgeoning problem, mixed messages, confusing and interchangeable verbiage and few examples to look toward, the problem at hand remains without a clear solution. 

As a motor deputy for the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, Christopher Larsen shared his experience seeing children every day riding e-bikes, and also riding illegal e-motos. Deputies have done work to educate families as much as possible, holding webinars, educational meetings with parent groups, utilizing school resource officers. 

“With all this in mind, it seems to not be enough,” Larsen said. “We need more … so people have the education to make the right decision.” 

The county is prevented from placing conditions on what can be sold, and the state is largely responsible for e-bike regulation. The proposed ordinance largely reiterated state law, while adding some local amendments and rules for enforcement, County Attorney John Nibbelin said. 

Ultimately, the ordinance reiterates state law that any e-bike that has been modified to go faster no longer qualifies as a Class I, Class II or Class III e-bike, and is not street legal. These modified e-bikes are considered “e-motos” colloquially or “unregistered e-conveyance devices” in the ordinance. 

The proposed ordinance also prohibits operating any type of electric transportation device in an “unsafe manner” that is dangerous to operators, passengers, other motorists or pedestrians. 

It also banned using an e-device on sidewalks, but this detail may be amended to consider when it may be safer for minors to be on the sidewalk than in the street. 

The proposed ordinance considered financial citations for repeat offenders — racking up to a $500 fine for third offenses within a year — and illegal e-motos could be impounded. A diversion program, allowing first-time offenders to do an online educational program rather than pay a fine, is intended to also be established for minors and adults. 

The ability to augment a legal e-bike into an illegal and dangerous electric vehicle, and back again, is similar to the amorphous language used to describe the transportation devices itself as well. 

The legal distinctions between what transportation devices would be affected by the ordinance must be clarified, opponents argued. Supervisors themselves appeared to not have a concrete understanding of the language in the ordinance. 

In the ordinance, “unregistered electric conveyance devices” are what has been colloquially referred to as “e-motos,” which are not legal to ride on California streets. 

Differentiating between e-motos and e-bikes is critical, advocates and supervisors agree. While the ordinance does not restrict legal e-bikes, identifying the differences between the two designations is sometimes challenging for the average resident — or for a parent whose child is asking for an e-bike as a gift. 

“If we can’t get 20 people to agree on definitions, how are we going to get a 14-year-old to?” Mike Swire, a bike advocate, said during public comment.  

The Silicon Valley Bike Coalition, a nonprofit promoting biking and safe streets in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, opposed the proposed ordinance, as did Swire, in his own capacity. 

In a letter to the board prior to the meeting, Swire outlined his reasons for opposing the proposed ordinance. It “villainizes” e-bikes and is both ambiguous and unnecessary, Swire said in his letter. SVBC voiced similar concerns that the ordinance fails to address larger safety concerns, including inadequate infrastructure and reckless drivers. 

In Speier’s presentation on the proposed ordinance, she unconventionally included a slide responding to each of Swire’s points and made arguments refuting the raised concerns. 

Board President Noelia Corzo said she was uncomfortable with calling out an individual member of the public in this way. During public comment, Swire simply stated his desire to help supervisors come up with the best ordinance to promote safety for residents.

“I’ve tried consistently to make this thing better,” Swire said. “Let us know how we can help.” 

The intent of the ordinance was described to address a public health crisis, but Corzo raised concern that the county’s Public Health Officer was not consulted and data from unincorporated county was not presented on the crisis. 

“We’ve seen deaths in our county, I don’t know how much more you need,” Speier said. 

Corzo also questioned if the City/County Association of Governments or the county’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee were consulted. Speier said no. 

“For a member of the board to bring an issue before the board, does not require them to meet necessarily with advisory committees,” Speier said. 

The discussion — on a topic which supervisors have all voiced favor of addressing urgently — was overwhelmed with interruptions, tense back and forths, and even a call from Corzo to Speier to stop rolling her eyes. 

Without a motion to move the resolution forward, it will be continued to a future date. Mueller hoped he could at least pilot the ordinance within his own District 3 — which largely represented the unincorporated coastside — but that fell flat as well. 

“I am not agreeing with the board on continuing this time today,” Mueller said. “I want my district to know, and I want the parents of my district to know, and I want the schools in my district to know … that today I was ready to move forward and take action on their behalf. 

“While I’ve heard some of the objections today, I do think some of those objections are based on politics more than they are on public safety,” Mueller said. 

Supervisor David Canepa voiced his inability to support the ordinance as written, describing the proposal as “premature.” 

“I understand there’s an issue, I understand we want to create a model ordinance, I just want to make sure we create the right model ordinance,” Canepa said.