Active Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

Very good. We can go get ahead and get started if that's okay. Thank you, everybody. So I am calling the October 15. Oh, that's okay. I don't need that.

Oh,

thank you very much. So I'm going to call the thank you. 10/15/2025 meeting of the active transportation committee to order. Thank you all for being here. Jessica, would you please call the roll?

Of course.

Committee Member Morales?

Present.

Committee Member Walters absent. Committee Member Chase absent. Vice chair Norby?

Here.

Chair Tapadea?

Here. Thank you. Alright. So now we'll go on to public comments, please, regarding items, public items that are not on the agenda, but that do pertain to the purview of the active transportation committee. Do we please come on up. Hey there.

Yes. Vince Buck. Just one comment, I guess, that is on the proposed bridge over Nutwood. I just saw a later iteration of that, and it makes no sense to me. And I don't know if this this body has any well, I do know. But if there's any way they have any impact on what the university plans on doing, it's just as as I can see, it's not a good use of money, period. It'd be better off not to have any bridge. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments here in chambers? I don't see any. Do we have any public comments on Zoom, please? No comments on Zoom. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close the, public comment section, and now we will go on to our regular business. So we have, one item. Give me one moment, please. Here we are.

We have one item on our agenda, which is, regarding, ebike ordinances here in the city of Fullerton. And do we have a presentation from our Fullerton Police Department on this, please?

Yes. We do.

Thank you for being here. Please go

ahead and share it with us.

Oh, great. I'll go ahead and share the screen over here.

Okay. I'm so sorry. Before you begin, our computers here on the dais are off. Is there any way to turn them on so we can follow along? Sorry about that.

No problem.

Oh, Thank you. Alright. We are in business. Would you would you please go on?

Perfect. No. Thank you for having me. I appreciate all of you being here and and your time. I'm lieutenant Tim Petropoulos, and I'm the commander for the the traffic bureau at the Fullerton Police Department.

And I have a presentation here that's going to address a proposed Fullerton Municipal Code addressing ebikes and other electric transportation devices in the city. And I'll go ahead and get started. So background on this, twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four, the Orange County grand jury, they put together a publication called e bikes friend or foe, and it revealed basically a lack of uniform regulations across the county's 34 cities. The grand jury recommended that the cities adopt specific policies that define rules for these ebikes and like devices. This draft ordinance aims to fulfill the grand jury's recommendation by updating the Fullerton Municipal Code with ebike regulations.

Is there an accepted correct spelling?

Usually, it's it's e dash bike.

Is that what you're asking? I also saw small e, small b I c k, but I guess it's a stylistic thing. You right?

You are correct. Committee member at Norby, it it is a all over the place, it's either small e, large e. Yeah. It's it's more of a stylistic thing.

I've tried playing it in Scrabble, and the Scrabble dictionary doesn't recognize it yet. Just do it without a dash, e b I k e. But they don't recognize email either. And e because email, obviously, is is with a small e, isn't it?

Yes.

Right. But okay. But if we're sticking with that, then we'll go with it because the ordinance has that spelling. Correct?

Correct.

Alright.

Thank you very much for pointing that out. So the proposed ordinance components, basically, it clearly defines e bikes and other motorized devices by the class and sets operational standards. Many people are aware of these classes, but many people are not. So a class one is a pedal assist only limited to 20 miles per hour. Class two is pedal assist plus a throttle also limited to 20 miles per hour. Class three is pedal assist only, but that goes up to 28 miles per hour.

Question, madam. Sure. What's your interest in class one and class three? They both say pedal assist only. Is there a structural difference between the two?

It is yes. Basically, the class one will assist the rider to get to 20 miles per hour. And after that, the assistance from the device stops. You can go faster if you can pedal faster, but the assistance from the device stops there. Whereas class three, it's gonna help you up to two twenty eight miles per hour.

Alright.

And there's there is actually a a graph that we included in the PowerPoint because there since there are three classes and there are other devices, people have often questions about helmets, how old can you be to ride these, where can you ride these. So that's why we included this this schematic. So and and, again, many people already know these rules, but but it's easy to forget them. So this ordinance sets out to prohibit unsafe operation of these devices on our public streets in Fullerton, sidewalks, paths, trails, parks, and other accessible private property. What we think is very important is that it defines unsafe operations because that is a very vague term.

And it provides an exemption to pedestrians who, due to physical disabilities, use self propelled wheelchairs, motorized tricycles or motorized quadracycles to move about, which is very important. So here is the list of all of the unsafe operations that I went ahead and mentioned in the last slide. If you don't mind, I'd like to go through all of them. So the first one is swerving or bypassing stopped or slowed traffic intentionally. Next is misusing a motorized device such as carrying passengers on single person Madam

Chair, I presume we can ask questions as we go along. Correct?

Yes. Although, may I suggest, if I if I may, it might be, if there's gonna be a few different questions, we might be better served by allowing our officer to continue the presentation and then maybe doing a list of questions at the end if that's okay with you. It might help with the flow so we can get a global view of what their discard

I did wanna ask about the first one. I might forget. Okay. If there's a long line of people, you know, stopped at a light, they can go around I mean, they can go on the side, right, where there's a shoulder. They can bypass the stop traffic Yeah. Or they have to stay in the back. I I I'm not sure exactly what that means.

Well, typically, you know, hopefully, they're in a bike lane. Uh-huh. But this this first bullet point is to basically stop them from swerving in between cars, cutting them off at a stop's light. Mhmm. We're we're seeing them go weave in and out of traffic, and and that's incredibly unsafe.

Uh-huh.

And that that's the spirit behind that first bullet point. But, yeah, if they're in a bike lane, they they can keep going until that they get to the light or make their turn. Any other questions about that one? Okay. Okay.

So I think I left off on the the third one. So disregarding posted signs or signals. Minors 18 riding without properly secured helmet, which is very important. Purposely lifting wheels off the ground while riding on public pathways, your your quintessential pop wheelie, things like that. Performing acrobatic tricks or stunts that that we've seen a lot on social media or in person, operating in a way that endangers oneself or others, riding against the flow of traffic, using public drainage facilities, ditches, or channels, exceeding 20 miles per hour on public pathways or driving imprudently, not yielding to pedestrians, exceeding five miles per hour on the sidewalks, riding while hitched to a moving vehicle, allowing others to cling to the device while riding, not yielding to pedestrians or vehicles when entering a road from a sidewalk, ignoring posted signs that regulate device operation, riding in public parks as restricted by local code, exceeding 10 miles per hour on unpaved trails meant for hiking, equestrian use, or walking, exceeding 15 miles per hour on paved trails, modifying the device to increase its speed without properly labeling, using a handheld device while riding unless hands free.

Before I, exit this slide, are there any questions that need to be, addressed?

Minors 18. First of all, the term minor means 21 or 18?

It's 18, sir.

Okay. So at 18, they don't need a helmet? Or they just need one, but it doesn't have to be properly secured or what? This is It depends. Aren't there helmet requirements for motorcyclists at all ages?

It depends. If they're if it's a class one or class two and it's a child, they're they're gonna need a or when I say child, a minor, they

18.

They need a helmet. Yes.

Okay. But 18 or above, they don't. They're not required.

They don't unless they're they're on a class three or any other type of device.

So the bicycle rules apply because there are no there's no bicycle helmet requirement, is there?

Correct, sir.

On yielding to pedestrians, there are a couple of references. One just says not yielding to pedestrians, and one qualifies if I said not be yielding pedestrians when entering a road from a sidewalk. Now if an e bike's going down the street and a pedestrian jaywalks in the middle of the street, which is legal now, that pedestrian has to make sure that no one's gonna hit him. Right? Because the pedestrian does not have the right of way if there's if he's jaywalking, which is legal, but he doesn't have the right of way.

Correct? Because when when jaywalking was legalized, I think it it's clear that Okay. Unless it's a des unless it's a crosswalk or a cross street, pedestrians have no expectation that traffic will stop for them. Is that correct? And traffic doesn't have to stop for them.

I'm gonna answer that question for you. So so so jaywalking, yes, it has become legal in the state of California, if you will, or they have not made it illegal. However, a a pedestrian still has a duty to make sure that it's safe when they cross. Right.

Yeah.

So to to answer your question, the not yielding to pedestrians or vehicles when entering a road roadway is to prevent them from just shooting out into the roadway.

Oh, no. I understand. But but the previous one, which just says not yielding to pedestrians, period. That's what

I'm not sure. Have to put yeah. Yeah. A car still has to yield to pedestrian. You can't just run them over.

Well, you can't run them over, but if if a pedestrian is standing in the road in a sidewalk, or or in a crosswalk and I'm at a car, I'm driving, I have to stop for him. Right?

No. You don't. As long as they're not entering the crosswalk.

Okay. But if he's jaywalking, do I still have to at what point do I, as a motorist, have to stop for for a pedestrian is what Well,

you have to avoid pedestrians at all costs. Right? So you always have to stop.

Right. Well, it's a safety measure. But I'm just asking, if if a pedestrian starts walking across, through a crosswalk and I don't stop for him, I can be ticketed.

That's correct.

Because he has the right of way.

That's correct.

But if he's jaywalking and I'm driving and he's walking in front of me and I can't safely stop, that's on him or on me or is it a judge

Well, there's it depend I mean, that's that's gonna be

Do you understand what

you're saying?

Yeah. I do understand what you're saying. You have a responsibility as a motorist to yield to pedestrians to avoid hitting them. Now, if somebody walks right in front of your car, you're going 40 miles an hour, the speed limit's 40 miles an hour and they step in front of your car and you can't avoid hitting them, you can't avoid hitting them. Right? And that's that's part of the unintended unintended consequences potentially of this change in law. Right?

Right.

But you still have a responsibility to avoid them.

Uh-huh. Does that answer your question? Sort of. But these these are judgment calls.

Of course. I I We can't we can't dictate we can't we can't regulate or or legislate every situation. Right? We can only do our best to try and cover those that we would think would be most common.

Well, my I bought an eBay from my son. I I have a 14 year old son. Everyone thinks he's my grandkid, but he's actually my son. And I went over these with him this morning. And I think I bought him a class too, and I'm even sure. I he saw found it online, and I figured, okay. You wanna ride around on an ebike? That's great. And I think overall, they're positive for kids because when I see them out on the streets and I see big groups of them. I'm in president Holmes, there's a like, six or seven of them that ride around.

I think, well, at least they're not sitting at home on their computer upstairs, you know, just looking at a screen. They're relating to other kids. They're like they've got a club. Not quite the Hells Angels yet, but it's maybe a more innocent version of it. So and kids and and kids wanna be mobile too.

So that's sort of the pre driving population, I presume, which is using these. Although you can, I I guess, even if you can drive and can't afford a car, you can use them to school, and people do commute with them to school? And I went over all these with him, and he he assumed these were already, you know, what what the what the code said or what the guidelines were. So he didn't have any specific objections. Although he said, well, in the end, dad, as you always say, no harm, no foul. Right? I said, I think Chick Hearn said that long ago. But, yes, the law is based essentially on no harm, no foul. And we try to anticipate harm, so we put these things in there. I had a question about the sidewalks.

I I wasn't sure if it was legal to ride these on sidewalks, but apparently it is. Right?

And I can address that.

They they can't be over five miles an hour. Correct?

Yeah. This proposed ordinance is allowing them on the sidewalks, and and we actually really looked at that hard because there are many cities that do not allow Mhmm. Bicycles or ebikes on the sidewalks for for obvious reasons because there are pedestrians. But we we didn't want to, you know, take away the opportunity for someone to that that's on a ebikes to maybe go on the sidewalk when pedestrians were not present Right. So they can kind of get out of the street.

Yeah. So there's no That's an option.

Major conflict with a vehicle and and ebike. So we elected to keep it at five miles per hour on the sidewalks. There are many cities that that do that. In fact, the Anaheim city of Anaheim does that, five miles per hour on the sidewalk. Mhmm. Unincorporated parts of the county have five miles on the sidewalk. But, again, some cities do not allow that.

Mhmm.

But we did not wanna exclude Right. These these bicyclists from being on a sidewalk. But but, again, we talk about pedestrians and a lot of these bullet points, and and they're gonna need to yield to pedestrians when they are on the sidewalk.

Right. Now on the rec trails, we differentiate between paved I I presume both of these bullet points refer to rec trails. Right? We used to call them horse trails or bike trails or whatever you wanna call them. So the ones that are unpaved, 10 miles, and the ones that are paved, 15 miles. I'm trying to think of of paved recreation trails in the city, And I'm I'm sure maybe you could tell me where they exist. Most of them are dirt packed dirt. Right? Because they're jogging trails, and the joggers prefer dirt to to pave trails. Do we have paved trails?

I'm I'm drawing a blank here. Vince paved bike trails that are not part of the road right away? Okay. Yeah. You're right about that. Yeah. That's concrete the whole way. Right. Right. A paved trail presumably would be those that are adjacent to a road, right, rather than a separate one. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Alright. Without properly labeling, I'm not sure what that means. You're saying that if they have a device to increase the speed, they can do it as long as they stick a label on it that I've done this? Or or is that a labeling that comes from the manufacturer? Or is that

That that comes from the manufacturer. Because we we have issues with people buying these devices that are street legal, then they modify them to go faster or or that, you know, gets completely if they buy a class one and it's completely changed. So that that covers that.

Okay. And the last one, using a handheld device without riding less hands free. Is that hands free refers to the device or does it refer to the vehicle? Because none of these are hands free. Right? You have to have your hands on the handlebar. Right?

Correct. And and that's to to avoid people using the phone while they're writing one

But if they have an earbud and they're talking to something, they're okay?

They're okay. Yes.

Alright. Okay. Those are my only questions for now. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Any other questions about the bullet points? Okay. And I will mention that we did limit the speed on the equestrian use trails or the unpaved trails that we do have in Fullerton to 10 miles per hour. There are other cities that do not allow that, but we feel 10 miles per hour is seems pretty safe.

And doing a little bit of research, it looks like NHTSA and the International Mountain Biking Association also suggest those type of trails anywhere from 15 miles per hour or less. So we wanted to stick to that. And many different equestrian communities often push for 10 miles or less. So, again, we didn't wanna eliminate this option for ebike riders, especially on our popular trails. So but we did need to put a a speed limit with it to maintain safety.

One more question about definitions. Are these what we used to call mopeds back in the seventies, or are they completely different than mopeds? Do mopeds still exist? Or is that this is what mopeds have become?

The the yeah. Yeah. These are not mopeds, but mopeds still do exist, and and those are definitely not allowed on our horse trails.

How how are mopeds different than these then?

Well, the mopeds are are not electric. They're gas powered.

Oh, oh, I see. Yeah. Okay. So Alright. And have they become pretty much passe? They still make them? People still have them, or e bikes pretty much replace them?

We don't see them very often. They're still around. Mhmm. But what we see mostly are these ebikes, all classes Mhmm. In addition to the scooters where people are standing up and riding with the small wheels

Mhmm.

That are also electric powered.

You can rent those in LA. Right? There's presume big cities where you can pay a credit card.

Correct. Yeah. All over the country, sir. Those are definitely especially in big metropolitan areas, they are available.

All right. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Question?

I do have a question. So if you not particularly on this slide. Actually, I might just wait a little bit for the question. Okay. No problem. All

right. I'll get to the

next one.

So these revisions would establish clear rules for e bike use in Fullerton and provide the police department with necessary municipal code to enforce safety regulations, ensuring the well-being for the residents and the visitors. Adopting this ordinance that defines these conveyances would also help reduce confusion and consolidate unsafe practices into clear straightforward guidelines. Furthermore, this ordinance would empower officers to issue civil or criminal citations as appropriate based upon the situation.

A question on this citation. If you stop someone, they're 14, 15. They don't have to have a driver's license at that age. Of course, they don't have one because they're too young. Are they required to have ID? How do I identify who they are? How do you write a citation? Or do you usually just warn them and scare them and and deal with it that way?

Every case is different. A lot of times, we do warn, especially children. But if it if they're doing unsafe practices, a warning to a child typically isn't enough. Their parent their parent needs to be notified Uh-huh. Kept in the loop on the situation. And if we were to issue an administrative citation as a first level of enforcement that keeps kids out of the court system

Uh-huh.

Which which is the ultimate goal initially. If we have a multiple time offender, then we'll see about issuing a a criminal

seize the bike, put it in the in the trunk of the squad car, and

Yes, sir. We yeah. Especially

the kid home and say, deal with us later, or how does that work?

Yeah. That especially the the dangerous ones, the the the Surons, the e motorcycles that that are not legal on the street, though those do get impounded. And in fact, there is a an assembly bill that states January 2026, if there is somebody under the age of 16 riding a class three, that's the the bike that can go up to 28 miles an hour pedal assist, that will also be impounded for for forty eight days.

A theft, is that a issue with e bikes? Have you had many complaints that they've been stolen? Are they easy to lock? Do they have internal locks, or do you chain them onto a stationary object like a bicycle?

They're they're they're easy to lock, but but you need to you actually lock them to a bike rack. And to answer your first question, they they do get stolen. They're big ticket items, and when they do get stolen, we take it very seriously because that that is a a high ticket theft that

we But is there any kind of identification system? They don't have licenses. Do they tell you the serial number? There's a is there a VIN number on it where you can track down?

Yes. They have serial numbers. And and what we have seen is across the county, because they're so expensive, people are more likely to have that serial number recorded or have a picture of it on their phone to give to us when we're taking the theft report. So if we do come across it, we run that number and it comes back stolen. They're getting their property back. Mhmm. Bicycles also have that ability. You know? And we encourage people to do that, but we see it more with these ebikes because they're so much more expensive.

That's typically our kids that steal them and then ride themselves around town, or are they rings that resell them somewhere else and ship them out or both?

It it's a little bit of both, but the the the latter is a little bit more prevalent because of the resale value. And, again, sometimes we'll we'll be on those websites, and we'll find the stolen bike. Okay. And and we'll we'll we'll get it back that way

too. Do they show up on Craigslist? You scan that or other sites like that?

Craigslist. There's a website called OfferUp, Facebook Marketplace. Uh-huh. You name it, The thieves will try to, you know, sell it and make a profit.

Vince.com.

May I suggest that we allow our presenters to finish their presentation, and then we can have public comment, and then we can continue the questions that don't directly pertain to the presentation.

Oh,

sure. Well, Thank all these could definitely pertain to e bikes. And so I I think we wanna understand this as best we can. But thank you.

Absolutely. Maybe we can, kind of move the presentation along and then certainly come back to these important questions after public comments.

Thank you very much. We're pretty close to the end here. And that is the end.

Thank you. Alright. So before we go to our committee discussion, do we have any public comments from our audience?

Yes. But there are too many. I'd rather let Chris go on, and ask all the questions I might. It's a problem. I I just got back late last night from New York City. I almost got run over in Central Park, which is not surprising. And I suggested an article in New York Times on the second, I believe it was this month, on the issue in in Central Park. It's fascinating because you not only had the e bikes and the scooters, you have horses and carriages, you have pedicabs, you have pedestrians, and it's crowded.

Was it an e bike that almost ran you over? Or did you get Yeah.

Yeah. No. It was it was a street. It's not a street, really, because there are very few cars allowed in Central Park, but it was it was it was a one way designated as a one way

Mhmm.

Access for for the horses and carriages and the petty bikes or whatever. And I just wasn't looking the other direction. And I came the other direction, and if my wife had hadn't grabbed me, I I I would have been hit by the but that that's the situation it's faced. There's just, you know, almost every vehicle imaginable except cars there. And in a sense, that's what we're facing. We don't have that many now. We don't we don't have any rental bikes, electric rental bikes in the city anymore that that I know of, if we ever did. We we did have rental bikes. We don't we don't have those. And but they're coming, I'm sure, sooner sooner or later.

And there there needs there needs to be firm firm rules on these and and they they need to be restricted. I I I I can come up with my set of rules where they would probably be more restrictive. I would would not permit them on sidewalks. I would not even at five miles an hour because they're not going to ride at five miles an hour. These are easily modified.

I've seen different speeds of 55 miles an hour or 72 or three miles an hour. Anything in that range, mean, at 28 miles an hour, my mind, be licensed. That's not what we're dealing with here. I think the 10 miles an hour on paved trails, of you have very few, I think is very restrictive. There's one spot on the Santa Ana River Trail where I've seen two signs at 10 miles an hour. I mean, even at my age, I ride over 15 miles an hour usually on a trail like that. I think you the restriction should not be of such that no one's gonna follow them. They they need they need to be stopped.

Could you say that sentence again, please? I didn't quite catch that last sentence. Which After the after you said Santa Ana River Trail, there's parts that are 10 miles an hour, and you go you you're able to achieve 15 miles an hour often, and then you said something after that. Sorry.

I mean, 15 miles is probably my usual speed. I I what I'm saying, the restrictions, the regulations need to be, basically enforceable, and and they have to be understandable. And and putting restrictions on different classes, the officer has to understand what I I don't real looking at them, I don't can't tell one class from the other.

You know? Question, Vince. I had a question for Vince. You said we used to have, rental bikes that you could pull off a stand and put your credit card in in the city?

Yeah. For a while, there were there was between the university and the train station, there there

were And these were bikes, e bikes, scooters?

These are these are very heavy e bike. No. No. They were not e bikes. They were very heavy bikes. They were I I misspoke myself when

I said And it wasn't successful? There wasn't enough business? Was this a vendor that did this through the city?

The the county I think the county set it up initially under under their regulations, but it it

Oh, OCTA did it. K.

I think so.

Okay. But

I I don't I don't remember. But I but I remember riding one once. They they wanted one of the members of this committee to ride them to see how they had they were. It was it was klutzy. I don't and and it failed. Yeah. But I I I don't know. I mean, there there may be some on campus that are rental. I don't I don't know. I see, sort of uniform bikes over there, but, they they will be back.

Alright.

Thank you. Do we have any other public comments here in chambers? No. I don't see any. Do we have any public comments on Zoom, please?

We do have one.

Please.

Julie, give me a moment. It's not letting me unmute him. Sorry about that. I can't unmute them, so we're gonna have to go forward. I apologize for that.

So, to our caller on Zoom, hopefully, you're able to, to hear our audio. It seems we're having a little technical difficulty unmuting. So So what we'll do is we'll go ahead and keep you on hold, try to work out any technical difficulties, and then we'll come back to you for your public comments so you'll be able to share your thoughts. So, Jessica, please don't let me forget at the end of our discussion to come back.

Can you hear me?

Oh, I we just heard him.

Yeah. He's there.

Okay. You're on. Please go ahead.

Sorry about that. So I, I oppose these regulations, for a couple reasons. First, I think some of the rules have subjective language in them that will make enforcement, problematic. For example, it has things like, operating in a way that endangers oneself or others. It also regulates, people driving imprudently.

I think because these are subjective, it'll make enforcement a little bit tricky. In addition, I think that five miles per hour on a sidewalk is very strict. That's the same speed as, like, a slow jog. So, I would also oppose that, regulation as well. And all in all, all the most of these rules are already covered by state law.

So things like riding against traffic, not yielding to per pedestrians, minors requiring helmets, disregarding signs, all of these are all, covered by state law. So I'm not sure why we would need to implement that, at a local level as well if it's already covered, through California law. So, I oppose this mostly because state law is sufficient in my opinion. Fullerton doesn't have a problem with cyclists. We're not Irvine. It has a problem with poor infrastructure. So it should be possible to ride bikes in the city before we start regulating them. Thank you.

Do you have

a name, sir? Much. I don't believe public commenters are required to

provide required.

I was just curious if he forgot his name. Elijah Manicero.

Thank you. Do we have any other public comments on Zoom?

No. We do not.

Okay. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close public comments, and we'll bring this back to our committee discussion. Members of our committee, do we have any questions or comments, for our presenters? Please.

So I do have a question. In the classification of the bicycle policy, I know that this is strictly for bikes and but I do have a question for e scooters, typically around, like, you know, CSUF or in other places. I won't I was just curious if we had, like, additional language that protects those as well and how that would work.

Thank you for your question. Yes. When it comes to e scooters, they are definitely in their own class. They're they're very popular. However, the California vehicle code does have certain laws for that type of device.

And, for example, though those are not per California vehicle code 21235. They cannot be on the sidewalks as much as we we do see them on the sidewalks. Though those that operate them need a driver's license. Those that operate them should be wearing their helmets. And when they are actually operating in the bike lane, which they're supposed to be, they can't go any faster than 15 miles per hour. And this this is all per the California vehicle code.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from our committee? This

goes to the TCC Transportation and Jurisdiction Commission or directly to the council, or what's the process?

Directed to the council, sir.

Alright. I think the the public commenter had a point, the one that was online. These these do seem vague, but a lot of laws are. State law does cover this. I think this was in response to the grand jury recommendation of the of Orange County. But I I agree a lot of this is already covered. I mean, operation that endangers others you I mean, you could you could cite somebody for operating a lawn mower dangerously if he's running with it down his public sidewalk. Right? I mean, operating any kind of behavior which is dangerous is covered presumably under English common law. Right?

That is, even though it's not specifically mentioned. I'm I'm looking for our three police officers here. You might have some interesting stories in your past about things that are obviously endangering public safety, but aren't specifically mentioned. But anything that endangers public safety, you have the power to address, right, or ameliorate on the street?

That's correct, sir.

I'm not trying to trap you here. I'm I I think it's an easy question to answer.

It may sound vague Uh-huh. To to some, but there are so many different things people can do with these devices Mhmm. That are unsafe. Mhmm. And every situation is different. Mhmm. Every location where these maneuvers are taking place is also taken into account because that can can could be considered even more dangerous where they were doing the maneuver. So it's hard it's hard to define every single example, but we do rely on our our police officers with their training and their experience to know what what is unsafe on these type of motor vehicles.

What's been the record or your experience about accidents? E bikes hitting each other, e bikes hitting pedestrians, people alone on e bikes, falling off, hurting themselves. Is that is that common? Is that are there hospital calls, ambulance calls related to e bikes? Any record of that? Yes, sir. Anecdotes?

Yes. Actually, there there's we've obviously talked about how these are becoming increasingly popular for for very obvious reasons. But with that comes a degree of safety concern. Mhmm. When it comes to to answer your first question about accidents, we we do see all types, whether somebody's under the influence, if they fall, if there's a conflict with the vehicle, a pedestrian.

We have encountered all of those, and we are seeing an increase when it comes to these these collisions. In fact, in 2023, we had only seven collisions involving e bicycles. Uh-huh. And all of those seven were actually there was a degree of injury. We in 2024, we had about thirty five of these. So we went from seven to thirty five the next year, and thirty four of those had an injury involved.

Yeah. My son's best friend came over last night. In fact, he was his hand was in a cast, and he broke his wrist riding his ebike. I'm I'm sure he probably fell off or did something you shouldn't do. I mean, you can injure yourself on a bicycle, on a skateboard, a lot of things, but I know it does happen. Well, I can see passing this on to the council. I think the speaker who addressed this through the Internet, I would urge him to go to the council personally because I think it's probably more effective. I don't know what they're gonna do with it. I think a lot of these things are kinda restating the obvious and just reiterating powers the police already have. But e bike, it is a growing phenomenon out there, and there is a growing public concern about them.

If and I think it's because the technology and the affordability of e bikes is making them more and more popular. The one that I bought, I I don't think it was more than about $1,500. Is that a common cost of an ebike?

They range close to that and even much more.

Right. Now with the if Trump follows through, there's a 130% tariff. Well, it's gonna go up substantially, but we'll have to wait for the latest tweet on that. But I can go ahead with it and refer to the council and defer to their wisdom. Thank you. Madam chair, thank you. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this to us and for taking your time and sharing it with us. And it's clearly a list of things that address community concerns, which is always important. Yes.

Sorry. Just for a little bit more clarification, because, I was just curious. Is there any possibility that we're able to add e scooters to this or no? Just another question.

Yeah. Yes. E scooters is part of this. It's not just bikes. It's the it's the electric conveyances. Okay. However, though, the e scooters have their own separate law when it comes to sidewalks and speeds and and things of that nature having a license. So we we can't change California vehicle code law. Right. But, no, but it does apply to them if they're doing unsafe acts, things of that nature. It does. It doesn't apply. Thank you for asking.

Now an e scooter is legally a motorcycle. Right? And all the vehicle code you gotta be 16, have a driver's license. Is that correct?

Correct. Correct. Yeah. It's it's well, it's not necessarily a motorcycle, but but it is definitely, something where you you do need a license

But under the law

to operate that.

If you need a driver's license, then it's it's under the law. It's not like a motorcycle.

Yes, sir.

Alright. Thank you. Yeah.

Think, I'll go ahead and share my thoughts. Thank you, very much for taking the time and bringing this to us and sharing this with us. I think it certainly addresses concerns, but I also have a lot of concerns about the way this ordinance is worded and even just the sort of premise of it. So I'll share background on my thoughts. Obviously, as you all know, I bike a lot in the city.

I even have an e bike, which I brought with me just to demonstrate as an example of what an e bike is. One of the reasons that we see so many more e bikes on the road these days is because they are an effective tool to get around. They're an effective transportation tool. Cars are expensive and they require licensing and insurance and they require gas or they require an electric charger at home. They require maintenance.

So they're expensive. And especially for younger people who don't yet or aren't eligible for licenses yet, perhaps who are climate conscious. And there's a growing movement of young people who are delaying getting their driver's license or, you know, for students who, you know, have a dual parent household in which both parents work, you know, in order for them to be able to get around and be part of society, you know, when they're not able to drive or they can't afford to drive or they're not other reasons. An e bike serves as a great way for them to be able to transport themselves. A bicycle period does, but, an e bike makes it a little bit more possible for them to get around to the places that they need to go to transport themselves and to just engage in society, which is what we want kids to be able to do.

We want them to have freedom, to go and to to be part of things. We get upset when kids go out on the streets. We get upset when they sit at home on their computers. We get upset when they go to the mall. We kind of

Kids these days.

Kids these days. We don't leave them a lot of options. And so the growing e bike trend actually makes me really happy because I see it as a way for to allow more and more people freedom of transportation without having to rely on a car. And I see it as a way for children to regain the independence that our car dependent society has imposed upon them or has taken away from them, which I think is just so important for children's development to go out and see the world and problem solve and think for themselves and get into social situations and all of that. So, I think that I I don't see e bikes as a problem, as much as I see them as a as an opportunity for freedom of transportation.

I also encounter a lot of individuals on the other end of the age spectrum, so older individuals who maybe don't have the same capacity for exercise as they once did. A lot of people come to me you know, through my, bike groups and such, and they say, you know, I I wasn't able to bike anymore. I loved to bike when I was younger, and now I can't do it anymore because my body won't let me. And I got, you know, people will come up to me and say, me and my spouse got these e bikes, and we went on this great bike trip, I can do it now. And I can get back on my bike, and I love it.

It's part of my life now, and I learned to enjoy it again. And e bikes made that possible. So that's kind of where I'm that's that's just to give you background on on why I'm going to make the comments that I'm making. It's sort of like with this with this perspective in mind on the freedom that these vehicles bring us. Now one of the issues that I see with the way that this is all worded and the sort of, I think, general mentality I see around e bikes is that they don't actually differentiate between e bikes and, things that are not e bikes, but that are commonly mistaken for e bikes.

So the Surons and the Super 73s. I think that see, I wrote this down. I think that I believe that Surons are just are actually never street legal. I think that their wattage is too high. California defines an e bike as under with a motor of under 750 watts.

So those right off the bat are several thousand watts to start with. So they're never street legal. But I think that when people complain about quote unquote e bikes, are actually complaining about these e motorcycles, which are a totally different type of vehicle. They're not street legal. And if those are the things that are causing most of the problem and triggering most of the community complaints, then I think it might be more prudent to orient ordinances regulating them toward those specific vehicles as opposed to e bikes that are simply a mode of transportation for most people and aren't actually causing most of the harm.

I fear that restrictive ordinances could preclude the normal transportation permitted by regular e bikes when we should really be penalizing the use of nonstreet legal vehicles. So that's my biggest concern. Now I read the grand jury report and I think it also had the same fell prey to the same pitfalls where it didn't seem to differentiate between those. It didn't even really seem to acknowledge much of a difference between actual e bikes versus e motorcycles. It actually seemed to conflate them.

The or the grand jury report, another another, drawback of it, another feeling of it is it didn't actually cite any safety statistics. It didn't cite any hard data on collisions or crashes. It asked it pulled cities to see which ones had ordinances and tallied those up, but it didn't actually refer to any safety statistics or any collision statistics. And so it did recommend that we create ordinances for our cities, but without actual hard data to inform that recommendation. And so if we're going to be following suit, I hope that we won't follow suit simply because we're just following, you know, orders in the grand jury report, but because we're actually creating thoughtful legislation or thoughtful ordinances that are going along with the spirit of safety and not penalizing perfectly normal transportation modes.

A third issue I had was and this may this may actually be something you're envisioning, but maybe it's just not mentioned here. But the grand jury report, one of the prongs of the one of the three prongs of the grand jury report was to create education and training for for people who are using e bikes. That was one of the recommendations on equal footing with the recommendation to create local ordinances. But I don't see any provision for education here. And I think that education should precede ordinances.

It should precede lawmaking. Now the grand jury report recommended that all these things be done by 12/01/2024, so we're almost a year late. So I don't really see a problem with maybe delaying this ordinance in order to provision for the education that it calls for, which makes sense to me before enforcing penalties on people who are not educated because the city has not done so. So that's kind of one of my major concerns. I think that we're putting the course before the cart here with creating these ordinances like this.

Something, I'll kinda go through this list point by point. I took a lot of notes and thought about this quite a lot. One of the overarching concerns I have with this list is that as, Elijah said and Chris said, a lot of these items are already described in state law. And I think it might be on it might put us in a little bit of a pickle if we restate state law in our city ordinances because if state law were to change, we would have to revise our own ordinances. And I don't see the point of that redundancy.

We don't typically rewrite state law into our city ordinances for other things. For example, we don't have a city ordinance that says car drivers are required to change lanes when passing bicyclists, which is state law. And unfortunately, car drivers violate that all the time and put bicyclists at risk. But we don't have a city ordinance stating that to protect bicyclists. And I wonder why we don't.

We don't have a city ordinance saying that car drivers may not park in bike lanes. It's sort of implied, but that is something that could protect the safety of bicyclists, and that actually, something like that would then obviate the need for ordinances that penalize bicyclists for making maneuvers, that try to, avoid obstacles such as cars parked legally in bike lanes. So I and I apologize for, like, commandeering, but, there is so much so much, so much to be said about this. The summary of state law is that an ebike has pedals, and it has a motor that does not have more than 750 watts. Class one, pedal assist up to 20 miles an hour, and a helmet is already required under age 18.

It's generally allowed on sidewalks. Class II is throttle based, up to 20 miles an hour, and a helmet is required under age 18, and it also is generally allowed on sidewalks. Class III e bikes, are pedal assist up to 28 miles an hour, and there's no throttle, aside from a small exception to the rule provision by state law. And it has a speedometer. Riders have to be at least 16 years old, and helmets are required for everyone of all ages, including passengers, and they're generally not allowed on sidewalks.

Vehicle code 21,200 already says that the rules of the road apply to bicyclists. They have to follow traffic signals and obey speed limits and stop at stop signs, they have to bike on the right side of the road, and they have to operate under alcohol. State law also says that manufacturers have to place a label with information on class, top assisted speed, motor wattage, and it even says it has to be an aerial font of at least size nine. And it also defines what is not an e bike, which is a two- or three wheeled motorized vehicle that is modified to operate without pedals. And the manufacturer intends for it to be modified excuse me, modifiable, or it has been modified to attain speeds over 20 miles an hour on motor power alone or has more than seven fifty watts.

And I say this because there are redundancies in these ordinances that I don't think merit rehashing in state, excuse me, in city ordinances. And, again, because if we have redundancies and if the state corrects, then, if the state changes their their laws, then we have to change our ordinance and go through that whole thing. Instead, we could simply say, refer to state law for this. So, the prohibition of unsafe operation of these devices on public streets, sidewalks, trails, and parks, is already covered by California vehicle code three twelve point five, which says that bikes are subject to Vehicle Code 21,200. As for the first point about swerving or bypassing stopped or slowed traffic intentionally, this sort of reads as something that wasn't written by a bicyclist in the city of Fullerton because if you do ride a bike, you know that sometimes you do have to swerve around, car drivers.

For example, one prominent example is when you ride on Dorothy at rush hour next to Troy High School, a lot of the parents dropping their kids off at school will ride in the bike lane, the Class II bike lane that's there. The only way to bypass that and to get into a safe position where the drivers aren't distracted is to swerve around to their left and continue down the road, down along this long line of cars. So yes, you could say that's not in the spirit of this ordinance, of the wording of this ordinance, that the spirit of the ordinance would be to permit that kind of behavior. However, I can see situations where it becomes very subjective, and bicyclist who's just doing something that they need to do to be safe ends up being ticketed for what is essentially the lack of safe infrastructure provided by the city. They're performing an adaptive maneuver to protect their own safety, and yet they could be sighted.

Misusing a motorized device just carrying passengers on single person conveyances. This is a little bit ambiguous simply because some of these e bikes do actually have provisions for child seats where you can bolt them on as an optional add on. And so this doesn't seem to recognize that. Again, it's subjective. It's a little bit ambiguous.

And again, somebody could be cited for doing something that's perfectly safe and legal. Disregarding posted signs and signals, this is already banned. Additionally, California has already almost passed a stop and yield stop as yield or Idaho stop law that permits bicyclists to treat stop signs and stoplights as yield. It made it all the way to the governor's desk before it was vetoed. But that bill will come back eventually.

And if California State law were to change, then this would conflict with that, and then the ordinance would have to be modified. Minors riding under 18, riding without a properly secured helmet. This is already covered under state law explicitly. Purposely lifting wheels on the ground, like doing wheelies, I I would actually push back against against banning that just because if the kid's wearing a helmet and doing that on an e bike on a road where there's nobody around, I kind of chalk that up to kids being kids. If it's not already, prohibited for motorcycles, I don't see why it should be prohibited for e bikes.

And again, I think most of the times the people doing this are those riding those e motorcycles which are not e bikes. I don't understand the purpose of creating an ordinance to specifically target street legal vehicles. Performing acrobatic tricks or stunts, sure, let's ban that. Operating a vehicle in a way that endangers oneself or others, I think that that's a little too ambiguous. Again, it invites subjectivity that can cite perfectly normal behavior, perfectly normal and safe behavior.

Using public drainage facilities, ditches, or channels. This also doesn't provision for trails that may exist along those drainage channels. I would like more, specific wording. For example, something that says, like, except for on designated trails. Exceeding 20 miles an hour on public pathways or driving imprudently. For driving imprudently, bikes don't drive. We ride them. So I would I would change that. Exceeding 20 miles an hour, I think that's a reasonable limit. Most bicyclists under their own power, except for Class III, they're going less than 20 miles an hour or less.

Not yielding to pedestrian. Again, that's already covered under state law because bicyclists are subject to California vehicle code twenty one two hundred exceeding five miles per hour on sidewalks. I think this is one of those things that doesn't really recognize what it's like to ride a bike. I think this seems to have been written by somebody who's never ridden a bike. If you try to go five miles an hour on a, on a sidewalk or anywhere, you'll fall off your bike.

It's not really possible to do that in a sustained manner. And and there are situations in our city where you kind of have to ride on the sidewalk because of the lack of facility. So, for example, a lot of students on State College, which the city refused to put bike lanes on, students have to ride on the sidewalk, and you see that all the time because it's not safe to ride on that road. And saying that you're limited to five miles an hour, which isn't really feasible, isn't fair, especially when class one and class two e bikes are not required to have a speedometer. So it's like you're you're not monitoring your speed limit, somebody comes up to you and tells you what speed you were doing and you have no recourse unlike in a car where you have a speedometer that keeps you within the the the legal speed, like, tells you if you're exceeding the speed.

So I think exceeding 10 miles an hour is something you can only do if you're paying close attention to some kind of speedometer. And instead, you know, we could up that to 10 miles an hour, which is a much more reasonable cruising speed in an area with pedestrians, and then you can provide an exception. If there are no pedestrians around, we can increase that speed limit depending on the nature of it. For example, Bastonshire is a great example where or Malvern is a great example where there's a very wide sidewalk, and bicyclists routinely use that wide sidewalk because it's way too unsafe to to bike on the portions of Bastion Tree that don't have a bike lane. So, like, over near, like, the the cemetery, like, kind of, like, East of Harbor Boulevard, These are areas where and you can easily go over 10 miles an hour as you're going downhill on those, but there's very few pedestrians.

I've as I go down there, I rarely ever see a pedestrian. So I think this is something that should be modified to recognize some of the needs of bicyclists because of the deficiencies in our safe bicycle infrastructure in our city, as well as understand and reflect the actual real life bicycle riding conditions that people might encounter. Riding while hitched to a moving vehicle, I think that's a perfectly reasonable restriction. Allowing others to cling to the vehicle while riding same, perfectly reasonable restriction, not yielding to pedestrians or vehicles when entering a road from a sidewalk. This sounds okay on the surface, but it can end up applying to driveways such as, like, you know, for example, a car driver coming out of, like, a of a of a parking lot into a driveway that crosses in with the sidewalk.

So if a if a bicyclist is crossing there at the sidewalk and a driver is coming out, the if the bicyclist is on the sidewalk because, you know, again, they might have to be, and the driver doesn't see them, the bicyclist shouldn't be required to yield to the driver. In fact, the driver is required to yield to the bicyclist because you actually have to stop before entering onto a sidewalk to see who's coming. A lot of drivers overshoot that and that's how I've been almost hit walking or biking because the drivers aren't looking where they're going. And so I think that that's something that really needs to be cleaned up because let's say a bicyclist does get hit. They're riding prudently on the sidewalk.

A driver comes through on the driveway, crosses over the sidewalk without looking, hits the bicyclist. All of a sudden, the bicyclist is at fault, whereas the driver was the one who was negligent. Ignoring posted signs that regulate device operation, again, already covered by, by California, state law. Writing in public parks is restricted by local code. There's no reason for this if the local code already restricts it.

So let's see. There's exceeding 10 miles an hour on paved trails meant for hiking, equestrian use, or walking. Our our unpaved trails around here are that's the Fullerton Loop. So that I don't think is going to be really reasonable for those who utilize the Fullerton Loop. I think 15 miles an hour would be a more reasonable limit for that.

There are some downhill portions that it's impossible to stay 15 miles an hour. In fact, if you pump your brakes when you're going downhill and you're trying to stay under that 10 mile an hour limit, you'll fly off your bike and break your collarbone. So you will flip over your handlebars. And again, I think that these ordinances, if we are going to use them, they need to reflect real world condition and actually safety considerations. And so I would prefer to see 15 miles an hour on unpaved trails.

Juanita Cook Trail, again, the only misbehavior that I see is really from unregulated electric motorcycles, not from e bikes. The folks on e bikes are the ones who are going at a reasonable pace, usually like family members, you know, trying to get uphill, and they're not going fast. So I think this targets the wrong population. Exceeding 15 miles an hour on unpaved trails, I don't think that's reasonable. I I get the spirit of it, but cruising on a road bike is 15 to 17 miles an hour easy without breaking a sweat.

So, that doesn't reflect real world conditions. On a proper paved trail, you can easily avoid pedestrians. So modifying a device to increase its speed without properly labeling, this is already covered by State Bill twelve seventy one and Assembly Bill seventeen seventy four at the state level, so I don't know why that's needed. Using a handheld device while writing, unless hands free, I'm ambiguous about. So, again, I think the city needs to differentiate and really identify what the problem is.

Is it is it street legal e bikes, or is it electric motorcycles? And if it's electric motorcycles, then regulate those. You know, go to the schools and and, impound all of the street legal Ceyron's and Super 70 three's that the parents are buying for their kids. You know, go ahead and cite the people who are locked up at bike racks, across the the city, you know, who aren't who obviously had to get that that bike to a bike rack by traveling on roads that they weren't supposed to be traveling on because their vehicle isn't street legal. I think these ordinances are unnecessarily punitive and restrictive, and I think that they will inhibit the free use of e bikes, which are typically used for routine transportation.

I would like to see more targeted regulation. I'm also surprised that we didn't get any discussion on actual statistics. I'm not sure if Fullerton Police Department differentiates between e bikes and electric motorcycles in the process of their citations. And I'm curious why not. And also, I would like to see statistics on who was at fault in those collisions.

Another consideration is the statistics that we did receive. I don't know if they're controlled for the rise in the actual expansion. So like the grant year report stated and like you cited, e bikes are of increasing popularity. So it's possible the number of collisions are going up simply because the e bikes on our roads are going up or the number of e motorcycles on our streets are going up. And when controlled for that number, maybe the collision rate actually isn't going up at all.

So this could be a solution in search of a problem. And again, training education, I don't know why that's not provisioned for. However, it could be, and I just am not aware of it. So if the e motorcycle is a problem, then I think we should target those instead of all legitimate and safe e bike use indiscriminately. Normally e bikes shouldn't be penalized by irresponsible marketing, by irresponsible parents who buy their kids non street legal mopeds without understanding what they're getting, or, our lack of enforcement of existing state law.

Sorry for commandeering all of that, but there's just so much here that I think we could improve on, before kind of, pulling this out to prime time. And the last thing I wanted to do was just bring out my ebike and show everybody, like, what is an ebike because it's not an electric motorcycle. And I think when you see it, you will agree it's not an electric motorcycle. Hopefully, everybody on camera can see this. But this is an electric bike. It is tiny. Let me go to the microphone. That is an electric bike. It's very small. It complies with state law.

It is pedal assisted up to 15 miles an hour being a U. K. Model. And that is not the thing that's killing forty thousand people every year in The United States. It's just the cars.

So I just want to see more sensible targeted ordinances and regulation that still permits safe use without overly penalizing it and that recognizes the need for bicyclists to sometimes use sidewalks or use trails because of the deficiencies in our safe infrastructure that doesn't allow them to ride in bike lanes and that oftentimes bike lanes don't exist. So thanks for letting me share all of that. And I will defer to my fellow commissioners, or if our Fullerton Police Department has, anything to share as well, please let me know. Please.

Madam Chair, I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful comments. I'm thinking of what to do with this. We could vote simply to receive and file or pass on onto the council without any recommendation either way, but with your comments. And I would urge you when it does, if and when it goes to the council, for you to appear personally and and share your concerns because I don't think they would adequately be expressed in our minutes. So what what would you like to do with this today? No action or receiving file or sending the council without recommendation either way or actively oppose it or what?

Well, I don't wanna say that I oppose it. I think, I think what I'd like to do is listen to the rest of our our committee's comments and maybe have a dialogue with our our police department who brought this to us and then from there determine how we wish to proceed if if our committee as a whole wants to.

Would you like them to bring it back?

Well, I don't know yet. I think we need to to have a discussion about it. And then depending on the outcome, we can talk about that.

Well, I'll I'll defer to you as the chair.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Just for, like, the, I guess, the education aspect and with the, examples given, I know that we did with my questions specifically about e scooters. I just think visually as well, if possible, if we can have, like, a category as well because I think if it's, like, shown visibly and, explained, a lot of people would understand more and it would, like, result to less. I'm so sorry for my comments being mainly about e scooters even though that's not what we're talking about. I would just appreciate it and I just wanted to explain that just because I just think visually, it'd be a lot more easier to, as a e bike or e scooter, just be able to understand that. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there comments or things that I got wrong or things to share from our police department, from our presenters?

Thank you for for all of your your input and your your comments. I I'm not sure if I can really address every single thing you you said, but, the the ordinance itself, to kinda address the the public speaker as well, is not to replace state law. It's basically to plug in the gaps where it does not cover state law. So for instance, it's this is a local safety issue that that we we are trying to make safer on sidewalks, parks, shared trails, where the vehicle code gives us discretion to enforce and create laws because that that that is every city is different, like you said. The infrastructure is different.

So I don't see a lot of overlap with with state law. When it comes to stunts, that that's I mean, there's just too many different situations where where you you can you can what if it all day long. And I know some of these may seem vague to some, but they sometimes laws need to be a little vague because you you can't cover every single situation. When it comes to collisions, the e motorcycle, the surrounds that you mentioned, they're not street legal, like you said. They cannot be there.

We we we impound them when we see them. But we are seeing a lot of collisions with the e bikes that are legal to to to ride around on. In fact, I I personally, like I said earlier, contacted St. Jude. I contacted UCI. I contacted Chuck, and I wanted to know the difference. Hey. Do do we have I know that e motorcycles are pretty dangerous, but when it comes to the just the e bikes, the class one, class two, class three, what kind of injuries are we seeing? And are we seeing an an uptick? Are we seeing a lot?

Every single hospital said they they were when it came to the either the class one, two, or three, again, because of the the prevalence. If we're gonna have more on the street, we're gonna see more injuries. But but just because we have more on the street, more injuries, that's still a a huge problem. So in fact, every single hospital said that the collisions from the class one, class two, class three were more comparable to motorcycle injuries than they are bicycle injuries. So they're very different than bicycles, and and the hospitals are are also telling me that as well.

Now the collisions are the rider gets out of control, hits a tree, hits a curb, or he hits a pedestrian, or he hits another ebike or all three. Or or they To answer

your question, sir, it it it is everything under the sun. Somebody's just not capable. They they fall. They they're going too fast. There there's a collision with somebody or something. It just and they're new, relatively speaking, so the pedestrians may not be used to them as well. They're heavier even though you know, most class one, class two, class threes, they're little heavier than your your your classical BMX bicycles. And if they're gonna be heavier, you're gonna have worse collisions.

I had a question about the process. And maybe, madam chair, you know the answer. Maybe somebody does. Was this, directed by the city council to come up with an ordinance, or is the police department simply responding on its own to the grand jury report, or did the council request this send it to us for our feedback?

I can answer that. So one, this is in in definitely in response to the grand jury report. We have gotten numerous complaints, over the years about e bikes and the need to regulate them. And I believe council has requested an ordinance as well. Now I will also say this, to to answer some of your questions, chair Tapadea.

Just like any law that's written, for the most part, it involves discretion and common sense in the enforcement thereof. Right? So because an officer sees somebody swerve, that doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna get a citation. If they do it in a dangerous fashion that goes around existing traffic, maybe they will. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there it is always gonna result in in an in an enforcement with with an actual citation. Right? It takes some common sense on part of the officer. And and and to the the behavior that's being regulated here, I would venture to say, because I know you're an avid bicyclist, you don't do any of those things. Is that correct for the most part?

It depends, Just like you said, it depends on on the perspective of the person who's observing it.

Sure. Yeah. The way the way that it's written though and the some of the issues that you have, I would imagine you're not driving your ebike through traffic and and intersecting or going in front of cars that are stopped at a red light?

If I have to for my safety, then that's what I have to do. For example, like,

Well, you're conflating the two though. You're conflating the two. Saying in a dangerous manner. Right?

But that's subjective. So somebody could say, like, if I have to ride to the left of traffic in a a two lane road, I give the example of Dorothy because it sticks out most prominently in my mind. Like, you know, that bike lane, it gets filled up with car drivers even though they're not supposed to be there, and they create sort of a tunnel, a closed end tunnel where I can't get out once I get to the driveway that enters into the school. Sure. The only way for me to traverse down that road is for me to weave between the vehicles to my left and then to continue to the left of them near the center yellow line, and then they continue down that road.

And that so that's the that's the safest route for you to

do it? That's the safest route because if I continue down and I try to do that at the driveway, like, the crosswalk, well, there's no crosswalk, but where the sideway sidewalk continues, I have actually almost been crushed by a car turning right Sure. Because they entered they they trespassed into the bike lane. So that is an unsafe way for me to try to get through that road. But somebody might see that and see me weaving between the cars and say, I'm performing an unsafe maneuver where I'm actually trying to save my own life.

Sure. And again, we we can't regulate every every movement in every specific situation. Right? But we can do it for the general population that typically causes these accidents. Right? And if you've seen any of the videos and as as relating to this particular incident, you see kids riding really dangerously in and out of traffic. That's not what you're doing, and I would like to believe that when a police officer sees that, they'll exhibit common sense, right, which is a lot of the enforcement mechanisms involve common sense on behalf of the officer. And if it doesn't, then that's why you have the ability to go to court.

Now one specific thing that was mentioned was the five mile per hour limit on sidewalks. I I'm not familiar with the laws of physics, but, it was mentioned that if you do did that, you would actually fall down. You couldn't maintain your balance. I'm I'm not sure that's true or not. I I ridden my bike on sidewalks.

I have no idea what what my speed limit is. I'm gonna make a motion, see if it gets a second. I'll move that we receive and file the report, and that we refer it to the city council without a recommendation one way or the other, but with the comments and the minutes that will be reflected and passing on to the council. They get they get our minutes and they get our discussion. And I'd encourage you personally to attend, you know, when it does go to the council. So that's my motion.

Committee, I would make a recommendation that you do provide, because you had extensive discussion today, that, we wouldn't just leave them as action mittens for this particularly. We would take each of those comments that chair Tapadea, as well as vice chair Norby had mentioned today, as well as Morales is putting them out in a general list and we could even repeat some of them back. You we we need to include kind of recommendation. This is where ATC feels that the ordinance needs to change or maybe needs to be rewarded to consider some of these, kind of situations where it can be subjective. You know, I think the feedback regarding fire five miles per hour on a sidewalk.

I think those are good points that brought up. Those those are recommendations I think need to be outlined so that the council can see that. Know, our Well,

my motion implies that. I mean, if we refer it without a recommendation, then it's clear that we don't support it and we have concerns. But it's ultimately up to them. And if they've asked for this report, then they'll get it. But I I don't want my motion can't contain every single item that was covered. That'll be reflected in a minute. So that's the motion I have, and and I'll see if there's a second. And if not, then somebody can make a different motion.

Thank you. I, before, before we go forward with that, I would like to see if you were gonna finish your thought, if there is more to what you were going to say.

It's based on the recommendation. If you don't like the ordinance as is, you can certainly say recommendation is to deny. Right? Out just outright. If you can, I would ask that you articulate some of these corrections based off what you said, PD was able to kind of give you some clarification narrowing that down a little bit more because it's counterproductive when you have a receiving file and then you're gonna show up on behalf of the committee to speak on it?

You certainly can as a resident of, Fullerton as a separate item, but we are here for that purpose. The purpose is to get a recommendation from this body to be able to give it to counsel. So, I would urge the the committee and I I can try and narrow some of these down as well and you can tell me whether that's correct. But that is what I would recommend this committee do. If you can clarify some of your points, if you feel like PD did not address it and you wanna, point that out, we can speak it into the record, and you can make a motion based off of that.

Well, I've made a motion. I don't know if you'll get a second. I sat on the city council for eighteen years myself, and we have received, when I was on the council, things from commissions that did not have a recommendation either way. And ultimately, it was our decision. And so that's my motion. If it doesn't have a second, then I'll consider seconding a different motion. Or we can just take no action if there's no if there aren't any votes for any motion. But at least I have a motion on the floor.

Before I respond to that, I have a question for you. If we were to do a receive and file, then City Council would not get any of our commentary. If we were to provide something including our commentary, what would that look like when the City Council? Would it be a agreement from the act of transportation to this list of organ act of transportation committee to the list of ordinances? Would it be simply returned with commentary to City Council? What would that look like when they receive it?

Well, They would get the minutes of this meeting, which would have all our comments because these minutes are

If you were to make no action today, yes. In the nature of the discussion and because it came to committee, we would attach it as a supplemental just as action minutes. Right? There wouldn't be a specificity around it. If you had specific recommendations, the staff report to council will say this item was taken to the ATC. There was vast discussion on x, y, and z categories, and they pointed out specific things. Right? And so that way they can see, okay, ATC or members of the public that came up to that committee had these concerns or praises towards the ordinance and wanna see it in there. Then, certainly, it's up to counsel how they wanna proceed thereafter and take additional public comment.

Well, I have thoughts about how I would like to go forward with that.

I presume that motion dies for a lack of a second. I the motion's out there. Somebody should either second it or

Thank you. Well, before before before commenting on it, I just wanted to make sure I had all the information about, you know, what would happen at this point forward. Do we have a second for our motion? No? I'm sorry. I don't believe the motion. I'm sorry.

You know, if you're against the motion, that's fine. I I don't know what other motion to make.

Thank

you. I don't think the committees are prepared to support at this time, but maybe there are three votes to do it.

I'm sorry for taking the time. But I just wanted to make sure that the only reason oh, actually, I'm right.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. So before we move on to the next step, which which is I believe would be providing some concrete commentary to the ordinance from the ATC to city council. Before we do that, I wanted to ask our police department if there's anything else to share, any other comments, because I I think we may or may not have cut you off the process of you responding or giving us feedback.

Education was was mentioned earlier, and and the police department is providing education on on ebikes. Less than a month ago, we provided a education at Beechwood Elementary for parents and students when it came to ebike safety. We frequently post in social media about ebikes and safety. And and every stop we make, whether a ticket is issued or not, education is also provided. So so we we are doing that as well.

And this, again, just to just to reiterate, this is this is for all electric vehicle con conveyances. So it it does address the the scooters that were mentioned earlier. So I don't want you guys to think this is not something that's those aren't those are included when it comes to the definition of what these apply to. Anything else?

Thank you. In your research on collision statistics with electric, we'll say conveyances, that was a good word, non non noncar electric conveyances, for lack of a better categorization, What are the age ranges of those involved in those incidences, and do they skew in any particular direction?

I don't have the exact numbers of the the age ranges, but it does range from juveniles all the way to the elderly.

Do you happen to know if there's a concentration at the at any particular age range? Like, do younger people tend to be involved? Because I think I hear more complaints about younger people on these conveyances. Does that correlate with collision statistics as well? No hard numbers needed, but just, a general trend.

Young adults based on the ages from twenties to thirties per my sergeant.

Has there been any enforcement from Fullerton Police Department in terms of enforcement or notification or communication with local bike shops that are selling these kinds of conveniences? Pardon me. Excuse me. Specifically, the nonstreet legal electric motorcycles.

We've had dialogue with with local bike shops, and we can't stop them from selling a product that such as a Suron. It it's up to the the parent and the child to know where to operate those, and that's not on our streets in the city.

I think that those are all my questions and comments. Before police department leaves, I wanted to ask. So, Sunaina, if we wish to make, a series of recommendations coming from the committee to be included in the list as it's presented to City Council, should we do that now with our police department present? Or should we let them head out? Because they're probably pretty busy.

No. I appreciate the respect for it but I believe I'm gonna speak on behalf of Chief Ruta's here but they're here for this item so that they can answer your questions because what we don't want is you do start to talk about a topic that maybe they have some information on and it just wouldn't be helpful for your recommendation. At this time if if it's okay with you chair, I've kind of made some pinpoints based off of the comments that's received. Maybe we can go through that. And if it's, accurate, if there's something missed, then we can add on to that.

And then you can make a motion, or discussion based off of so initially, recommend providing education to e bike and similar uses prior to initial enforcement once ordinance is adopted?

I would suggest, initiate a comprehensive education program prior to adopting the ordinance.

What I don't know what a comprehensive education program means. You're talking about something through the school district, through the city? I mean, if if that's passed on to the council, that's pretty broad. I I don't see them taking on a whole new responsibility there. So I think rather than go through these one at a time and taking a straw vote, that's what the chair wants to do, I think that'd be very cumbersome.

Think containing these in the minutes, would give the council plenty of information rather than rehash them one at a time. They've already been stated. They're in the minutes. I've made a motion to take no position but to pass this on to the council. I don't know what else to do other than just adjourn and take no action. But at this point, it looks like the commission is deadlocked in terms of how they wanna proceed. And if that's the case, you can adjourn the meeting, and and the council can do what it wants with this.

Well, I guess one option is we could consider a motion as a group together to see if we wanted to continue on with

Make a motion. I'll be happy to second it.

Thank you. With creating a list of recommendations based on Tsunayna's summary of our input. As a chair, I'd point of order. I think it might not be a correct form for me to make a motion. However, if anybody else

a chairman can make a motion. Of course, you can make a motion. Because I'll second it. We need a motion that is on the table to do something. Otherwise, we're gonna be here all night.

Mhmm.

So whatever motion you wanna make, I'll second, and at least we have something to discuss.

Do we have anybody who wishes to make a motion?

I I did, and I made one, and it they didn't get a second. So I'll make it again if you'd like.

I'll make a motion that we, that we go ahead and consolidate a list of, concrete recommendations in response to the ordinances in that in in in, what is conveyed to city council on behalf of the committee. Do I have a second?

You'd have to repeat that. Are we taking a position on this pro or con or not? And are is the motion to pass it on to the city council?

So we're not taking a motion necessarily as per con. We're saying that if this goes forward to city council, the motion is shall we we send it to council with a list of comments and recommendations from this committee as a whole.

Yeah. I would second that, that we refer this to council, and we're not taking a motion pro or con.

Correct.

We're referring you to the council with comments by the committee committee members that will be reflected in the minutes.

Yes. Minutes, is that the way

to Yes. Okay.

But each individual comment by an individual member does not constitute a recommendation of the committee as a whole, but it is something the council will take into consideration.

Yeah. I think that what Tsunayno is gonna do is gonna help us finalize a list that we could all agree on.

I I think the minutes are sufficient rather than rehash a whole list.

Well

The recommendation is coming from us. It's not coming from staff.

That's true. However, if we if we were to create if we were to provide a list of comments in response to an ordinance, if there happened to be conflicting opinions from the committee, then city council might not know how we as a group respond to that ordinance. And so it does to me make sense to have one single finalized list of recommendations from the committee as a whole. A

vote of the committee as a whole on each individual item that's been discussed?

Well, I was thinking to have Sunaina summarize our comments in the form of a list in response to each component of this ordinance. And then we can all agree on it as a whole or we can say yes or no to some individual items.

Committee, there's about eight items here. If I were to count them out, you can just generally agree to, yes, we'd like to move forward with this. It could be fairly quick, and you can reword it as you did for the first one that we just discussed. I think if you go down that pathway, I think we can get this done fairly quickly.

Okay. I I don't agree at all with that because there may be individual comments that members have made. For example, comprehensive education. I think it's worth while comment. I can't support or recommend the council because I I don't know what it means. But so I I don't want to veto that today and not pass it on. I think it's something the council should consider, but I'm not prepared to support it. I'm not sure what it means. It would be up to the council to sort of flesh it out. So I think to serve your purpose, it's much better having our general comments refer to the council through the minutes than try to take an up or down vote on each individual discussion item. Do you see what I mean?

That's a good point. How about we move education to the end of our discussion and then maybe we can move through some of the items we've already kind of discussed together and go through those quickly and then we can spend a few minutes at the end maybe coming up with some specific recommendations we have regarding an educational curriculum that we could agree on.

Chair, you can go one of two ways. One is, to what Vice Chair Norby is indicating is that we would put all of the comments made today, both public as well as committee, into the minutes, and we can transfer that over to the council. We will

Well, that's the motion I seconded. Correct.

If there's

anything other than that, I I'm I'm going to I'm going to withdraw my second.

We will put them out into the staff report, make the, you know, general suggestions that you've made here today. If there's any changes to that when you read the staff report, you certainly can contact staff or come to the meeting itself. But I think that is an approach you can take. Approach two is, pretty standard for most committees and commissions is that you create specific recommendations or changes, that you would like to make and we carry that over to the Council. You have both of those options at your disposal.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I'll go ahead and just make a motion that we create a specific list of recommendations.

There's already a motion on the floor that's been seconded. Do you want to withdraw that

motion? Didn't realize you seconded it.

I did, but if you want to restate it, go ahead.

Sure. I'll go ahead and restate that. So why don't we I would like to put forward a motion that we go ahead and come up with a list of recommendations and commentary on these, ordinance items that we then present to City Council.

I second that motion.

Thank you. Jessica, would you please call a roll?

Okay. Now we have to know what those recommendations are before we approving the motion. Right? That's why I didn't second it because I'm not sure what the recommendations are.

That would be the next step is for us to agree to Okay.

Then that's part of the motion. We'd have to vote on that.

So the

I mean, we can't vote on the motion without knowing how we're going with these specific recommendations. At least I can't vote for it.

So the motion doesn't force agreement with the recommendations. The motion is simply for us to move forward with creating a list of recommendations.

Okay. Wait. Okay.

Please. I would I like that option better because, I mean, you'd we all did have a specific, you know, wording

that

we had conflict with. So I believe, like, I

Are you okay with the motion as it currently stands? Okay. Then would you please call a roll?

Mhmm. Committee member Chase, absent. Committee member Morales, how do you

vote? Yes.

Committee member Walters, absent. Vice chair Normi, how do

vote? No.

Chair Tapadea?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So per our motion, the next step would be to go ahead and ask senate to, to read off kind of like a summary of the recommendations that we would put forward to city council. And perhaps we could save education to the last because I imagine we'll have some communication about that.

Based on the feedback for that, if I think we can remove the comprehensive and just leave it at education. I think council will understand that what you're asking for is providing education and outreach to e bike and similar micro mobility users prior to initiating enforcement once the ordinance is adopted. I believe the intent to chair please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you want to ensure that they have proper education regarding the changes that are made before enforcement is actually provided. So if that is the case we can certainly, if that is the intent we will include that language into the staff report so Council can take education into

consideration. Who's who's they?

So bicycle users, we will have, you know, whether it's flyers out to school, an outreach process would include posting at city hall, you know, wherever we can. If council agrees that there needs to be an education outreach, they can then direct staff to do so. Unless there are specific components to the outreach you wish to outline.

This is a hard one to comment on on the fly. I'm I'm I'm wondering if there should be a time frame now. It gets into the nitty gritty. For example, does education mean, like, one flyer to one school, or does it mean flyers to every school? Does it you know, it's a little I I agree with your point, which is that it's very open ended, and it leaves a little bit of room for ambiguity.

I think you can leave it up to council as well. If they if you don't have specificity around, the amount of days, I think council would have to make that determination because it does require staff resources as well as financial resources to be able to do it and how mass they wanna do it. So we would

Whatever we do is going be left up to the council. Correct.

And if I may, just real quick, when it comes to education, typically when we have any sort of new ordinance that involves enforcement, we will typically provide a two week or a thirty day educational time frame where we don't issue citations immediately. We if we come across an issue, they they get education instead of a citation, which is a warning. Right? So that is certainly part of it. And we do also typically always post, on our social media platforms where we have, over a 100,000 followers any new ordinances as well and explain them.

Thank you. You had a question? Thank you. I would be I think I would be okay with that. I don't know if there's any way to put something in about, not just city council coming up with the educational program or method, but also, like, with staff input. I don't know if that's implied in such a recommendation, but I think staff would be well equipped to to know how to do that effectively.

Correct. Okay.

Please. Second one

Oh, excuse me. I'm

sorry. I'm sorry.

Just for clarifying, that education isn't just like like you mentioned, like, one flyer per school or, like, just an elementary school. It would be through elementary, middle school, high school, and college? Or I just want a little bit or is that oh, actually, never

mind. And I

I wonder if maybe we could also add wording on education, not just about the you know, if the ordinances are adopted, not just the fact of them existing, but also education perhaps to parents on, like, what is and isn't an e bike and how to know if what they're buying their children is actually a street legal vehicle at all. Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Number two, recommend removing verbatim state mandated language from the ordinance to avoid redundancy and ensure flexibility of state law changes.

That's beautiful. I would also, talk about the specific, specific things, including that that I would remove. So, the part of the ordinance that says that starts with clearly defines e bikes, the part of the ordinance, that says disregarding posted signs or signals, minors riding under 18, operating in a way that endangers oneself or others, not yielding to pedestrians. Not and, again, also the other one, yielding to pedestrians or vehicles, ignoring posted signs, modifying a device. Those are the specific ones that I would remove simply because of the redundancy with state law.

State law already covers those.

Chair, I would add that, when we take on the state code sometimes, especially when you're creating a new ordinance, it's good to create that overview and definition and what this implies. So while it's in the traffic code or vehicle code, depending on the demographic, they're not looking at that code. And so when you create a new ordinance, want to provide as much information as possible. I think your point is well taken in terms of other code, government code sections or vehicle code sections that might be ever changing that I think that applies and we often use that. But I think the intent here is to ensure that the reader is understanding, hey these are the basic rules of using this type of machine, e bike or similar.

So if that is satisfactory, I think it would be beneficial if it's left in the ordinance.

I would instead suggest

Madam Chair.

Oh, please.

I I I'm not clear about this process. Are are are you as chair of this ordinance and recommendation trying to provide direction to staff, or are you trying to get direction from them as to what we should do? Because at this point it's really up to the Commission to decide what we want to do. And it looks like you're asking for permission from staff, but then again, you really need permission from the rest of the committee to decide if we even want to do this. True. So rather than you But discussing this with her, you ought to discuss with us to see if we wanna do this as a commission.

Good point.

And you're gonna have to pull us on all eight of these items, I guess, if that's where you wanna go.

The the point of what I'd like to accomplish is is I'd like to these are gonna be the recommendations that we provide to city council. And so these aren't gonna be, like, things that are actually removed from the ordinance or or changed, but I'm suggesting things that we as a committee present together to city council.

Ordinance till the council approves it. So these are all recommendations.

Okay. Proposed ordinance.

Yeah.

But what we're doing right now is discussing and finalizing the recommendations that we as a committee present to City Council in response to this ordinance. What what I would suggest for those items is perhaps they could simply refer back to existing California vehicle code and say, you know, writers of these electric conveyances will defer to or will comply with California vehicle code 21,200 or, you know, state bill, twelve seventy one, assembly bill seventeen seventy four, which covers some of these existing, rules. Yeah. That's what I I don't know how the committee feels about, about that. And that permits, to me that that that recalls the important aspects of the California vehicle code, and it provides that baseline background that you were talking about while also permitting while not rehashing state law, but also permitting for allowing for changes in state law, and not without having to recreate a whole new ordinance once state law changes.

Understood. Yeah. That sound okay? Okay. And the next item, please.

Require visible manufacturer class labeling on e bikes to ensure proper identification during enforcement.

The same thing. That's already required under state law. It even specifies the exact typeface and the size of the typeface that's needed. So, I would imagine that we could simply refer back to existing state law for that.

Okay.

Yeah. Is that okay with the committee? And our next item.

Recommend revising the proposed five miles per hour limit for the sidewalk. There were discussions regarding it being too slow and potentially unsafe. So the recommendation would be to revise it to 10 to 15 miles per hour maximum consistent with typical bicycle speeds and allowing safe operations where dedicated facilities are lacking.

Okay. I agree with that.

I now believe that was it. There was a discussion about kind of wheelies and trick riding, but I believe Chief Reyes had answered that. But if you feel like there needs to be some sort of verbal recommendation on that, I would leave it to the committee to decide.

I I am okay with leaving in, the restriction on performing acrobatic tricks and stunts that seems reasonable. I know kids are gonna do it anyway, but at least this gives the opportunity for because that is, like, legitimately unsafe on especially on roads. Doing wheelies, which is the item that says purposely lift lifting wheels off the ground while riding on public pathways. That one is, to me, not so unsafe. It's something that I see kids do all the time when they're just horsing around and having fun.

And and I see adults do it too. And the plural of anecdote is not data, but I have not ever seen anybody doing it in a way that I worry about their safety. But I think that I think leaving it there maybe I'm wrong. I apologize. I won't I won't I'm not gonna contradict your experience because you know you've seen way more than I have. But I it's kind the spirit of why I say that is simply because I I'm thinking about, like, how do we let kids be kids? And I think, like, I draw the line at, like, wheelie's okay, but stunt's not. That's kind of my the way I'm thinking about it. Like, stunts being, like, standing on your saddle, you know, like, doing a handstand on the handlebars, stuff that I've I've I've seen where I was like, woah. That goes way too far.

That's quite that's really risking quite a bit of injury. I don't know how Kimi feels about that.

K. Okay.

Those are actually all that I have that's on the list. So I correct myself if not eight of them. But, if there's anything else that you'd like to add, those are those would be the recommendations you would take over to counsel.

Please. I liked all the ones that we discussed in particular, so I don't have any comments.

I also wanted to put for using public drainage facilities, these are channels. I would like to see a carve out for, on existing trails. For example, San Ana River Trail is a big, channel with a bike trail. I know that's not in Fullerton, but as an example, if we ever develop the Malvern, trail, that would go along a channel, but it would obviously be legal to ride. So I would say, like, using public drainage facilities, ditches, or channels except where permitted, you know, where where a trail actually exists.

Not yielding to pedestrians or vehicles when entering a road or sidewalk. Again, this is introduces a bit too much ambiguity, I think. Maybe, like, there could be some more specific language on this. Again, just setting I won't I'm not gonna go over the in the interest of time, I won't go over the things I mentioned before, but I could see a lot of ways where drivers act unsafely. Drivers drive unsafely, but, the bicyclist could be found at fault using you know, with this language as it stands. So So I don't know if the committee has thoughts about that.

I like how you worded

it. You. Let's see. In conceding 20 miles an hour on public pathways or driving imprudently, I would want to see that change to riding imprudently because bicyclists don't drive. They ride.

Let's see. Exceeding 10 miles an hour on unpaved trails, I would like to see that raised to 15 miles an hour for the same reason as the sidewalk issue. Exceeding 15 miles an hour on paved trails, I could live with that, but, but I guess we could make a note that well, I don't know how the committee feels about about that biking on paved trails. Like, for example, Santa Ana River Trail, it's it's very normal to go above 15 miles an hour. All the pelotons and, you know, even like, in a non motorized bike, regular road bike, it's very, very because it's a straight flat trail.

It's very normal to go seventeen, eighteen miles an hour on that.

And just for, clarification Uh-huh. Are we talking about increasing the speed?

Or I don't know. I wanted to get the committee's thoughts on that because I don't know what, how how you feel about raising that speed limit designation on paved trails or not.

I would say, like, 20. I I see your point in that. I would say maybe 15 to 20 because I think after 20, if you like that just say if any injury would happen, it would be significant. Mhmm. It's not like it's, like, 30 miles an hour, but I I would cap it, like, at least 20. Mhmm.

I I think I I I would be in agreement with that capping it at 20. Okay. The modifying a device to increase its screen with speed without popular labeling, that was one of those that I would say refer back to state law. Using a handheld device while riding unless hands free. I don't know if there's a carve out that we could save for navigation.

I don't I don't know if this is something that came under consideration when these when this was worded, but, a lot of bicyclists, like a lot of bicyclists, use navigational aids while biking, you know, strapped to the handlebars of their of their bikes. So, like, a Garmin, sometimes they'll use, like, an app on their phone like Strava or Google Maps, which you which you need, I think, even more on a bike than in a car. Because with a car, you could just go in any street. But, these apps or, devices specifically route you onto safer bike routes. So it it may it means that if you're riding along, you know, Nutwood, it's not gonna take you down State College.

If you're trying to get somewhere, it's gonna take you down, like, a safer road so you don't accidentally end up on a main arterial without bike facilities. So I wonder if there's some way to make a carve out on this item for bicyclists to use their navigational aids while riding.

They have a they do have, bicycle mounts, right, for phones? Yeah. They could be using those. Correct?

Yeah. I don't know if that would be considered handheld or not if mounted.

If it's if they're not holding it and it's in a mount, that's not handheld.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep.

Does that how does that sound to you?

For clarification. Sorry. We're talking about if it's mounted, then we're good. But, like, are we still talking about if they're, like, checking to see if they're on track, like, route?

I think that the implication is as long as it remains mounted and is not held in your hand like this, then then that that would be permissible. Is that yeah. Okay. Yeah. We're okay with that.

Is there anything any other comments or additions from the committee? Perfect. Just looking over it one last time because this is this is really important. This could our our comments, I think, are, even if even if counsel chooses to ignore them, I I wanna make sure that we are not missing anything because this is really important. Okay.

Perfect. As as long as kinda, all the items that that we agreed were redundant are collected under that, like, redundancy statement, then I think that we're we're good to go. Any any other comments, questions from the committee? Okay. Think that that finalizes our recommendations to city council on this item.

So if there are no changes, you can make a motion to, forward the recommendations that were discussed just now, and we can record it.

Okay. Do we have a motion to forward the recommendations that we made together to city council? I'll I'll go ahead and make a I'll make a motion to recommend that we or I'll make a motion that we forward our collected recommendations to city council. Do I have a second?

I second that motion.

Thank you. May we have a roll call, please?

Committee member Chase, absent. Committee member Morales, any vote?

Yes.

Committee member Walters, absent. Vice chair Norby, how do you vote?

No. I I'm I'm not clear as to what the motion is and what it does. So I I I'll be voting no.

Chappadilla, how do you vote?

Thank you. Maybe our staff can help me with this. If committee member is not clear on the motion, just to make sure that everybody gets a voice. Is it

Well, that's my voice. No.

So Oh, so no. So you wanna

I mean, there's a vote.

And Yeah.

We didn't get

a I was just wondering if it would be appropriate to stop to provide clarification to our committee members so that he could he could share his voice.

The motion on the table is to forward collective comments to counsel.

Does that change your vote? Or does

No, I'm voting no because I I don't want to recommend this to counsel. And that's what the motion is, is to recommend that the counsel approve this. And I think that the sense of the, committee was to send it with no recommendation but with our comments rather than recommend that they approve it. There's just too much that's vague here. And so you've got your vote. You've got your two to one vote. So it will be approved. Yeah. Can't support the motion. Well And I don't think it's proper to interrupt a vote for more staff input. We have to have an up or down vote on the motion. And if it I

actually think that that is no, we're not

A motion is on the floor.

Motion is on

the And then the second day, and a vote is

on the floor.

Can I actually, I think he did bring up a really good point in that that I that I wasn't sure about when we made our motion, which is if we recommend this to counsel, are we forwarding this to counsel with a recommendation for counsel to approve it?

Well, you're making the motion, so you tell us what your

Well, I was under the impression that the motion was to forward these recommendations to counsel, but not necessarily with a vote of approval from our committee. And I think Commissioner Morales is shaking her head that that was her understanding as well. I was under the impression that we were sort of conveying to counsel We don't we don't have an opinion either way regarding approving. But if you're gonna do this, this is our these are our amendments that we recommend to the ordinances.

I'll I'll move the question. We're in the middle of a vote. So I think we have to finish the vote before we can have another motion.

I think this is

I voted no. I disagree with my vote, but that's how I voted.

Well, I think that you bring up a good point and that that does introduce a bit of ambiguity into the motion, and I was wondering if we could clarify that.

I think the assumption is that you're providing recommendations. These are changes to the ordinance as it would be proposed by, the police department to counsel. So you were saying you've reviewed the changes as part of the ordinance. These are the following changes and considerations we would like for counsel to take into consideration as they formulate their discussion and decision. If the count if the committee here is kind of neutral on this one way or the other, we can certainly highlight that as part of the recommendation is that, you know, the committee had specific recommendations as part of these specific sections of the ordinance.

However, did not make a decision whether, to approve the ordinance as is or to deny. At this time, the the ask of the active transportation committee is to make recommendations

Mhmm.

On the ordinance, whether they are changes or modifications. And we take that those comments, and we give it to counsel to make the the decision on the ordinance, whether it goes or not. Mhmm.

As the way that that that that was clarified, then I vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional kind of comments or considerations from our committee before we close this item? No. Okay. Very good. So I'll go ahead and close this item. And that concludes this portion of our Active Transportation Committee. And we'll go on to staff reports, but we'll give the opportunity for our police department to head on out. Thank you very much for for for sharing this with us and for taking the time to discuss it with us. Thank you.

Chair, we have no updates for today. We may have some capital improvement project updates for you for the November 19 meeting.

Wonderful. Thank you. Any updates from the committee? No? I'll share a couple of updates.

This past Sunday was Cyclovia. For those who aren't aware, Cyclovia is an excellent car free streets project up in LA. It happens about eight plus times a year where the city closes down a lot of streets in a designated area and then has social events and stuff along various points along the corridor. It's a wonderful opportunity that I very much recommend to anybody interested in experiencing, like, a car fee streets event. Active SUVs, another closely related event up in the San Gabriel Valley.

And it looks like we're coming up on a similar event that's taking form in Irvine, or a similar kind of vision taking form in Irvine. So these are really exciting pieces of progress. And what else? Oh, if anybody is interested in becoming a licensed cycling instructor through Bike League of America, this is also an important organization to help bicyclists navigate our roads safely. And there's going to be some events, safe cycling events through walk and rollers.

You can go to their website. There may be other educational courses coming up in the area, in the Southern California area, but those are the ones that I'm aware of. In preparation for an LCI course to be held in Southern California in December. If anyone's ever been interested in becoming an LCI, this is a good opportunity. The events don't come around to our area very often.

And the last thing, I do have a question for our staff members, and I suppose this could be open ended. But I just wanted to point out something I didn't think until I didn't think of until after I left our meeting, our last ATC meeting. I was a little bit concerned because I realized after we provided our recommendations on nut wood at our last meeting, I realized that none of the recommendations that we had made on the same road design two years prior in 2023 had been incorporated into the plans. And I was curious why that was. And, again, that doesn't have to have an answer right now because I don't want to get delved too much in the, unagendized discussion, but it was just something I noticed and wanted to point out while I had the opportunity.

Thank you. I appreciate you bringing it up. You know, Michael Plotnick is not with us tonight, so I will certainly take that comment to him and, happy to share his response to the committee as a whole.

Thank you very much. And my last point that I wanted to share was, I'm sure everyone has sadly heard of the two, scooter riders at right outside Cal State Fullerton who were seriously injured, on Associated Road just north of the Yorba Linda Boulevard Intersection as they were traveling southbound. This happened on September 27. There were two scooter excuse me, soccer players at Cal State Fullerton, and, the last I heard, they were still in serious condition. And, you know, they were traveling in the bike lane, and they were hit from behind by a box truck, and their injuries and this incident is very sad.

Anytime any member of our committee, no matter how or who, is injured or is in serious condition, it's very, very sad. So, I wanted to suggest that perhaps we as a committee extend our condolences to these affected scooter riders and their families because this was a terrible incident, and I hope that we can see safer infrastructure on our streets in the future. Thank you. If there's no other items from for us or from us as a committee, thank you, then I'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting of the City of Fullerton Active Transportation Committee. And our next meeting will be my phone wants to cooperate Wednesday, November 19 at 05:30 p.

M. Here in Chambers. Thank you, everybody.