AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 11.72 (AIRCRAFT LANDING) ,
REGULATING AIRCRAFT LAUNCH AND LANDING, AND TO PROHIBIT
RECREATIONAL UAS
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove regulates the landing and launching of aircraft, including Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, within the City in Chapter 11.72 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
2. UAS, as aircraft, are subject to regulation by federal law and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Federal law preempts local laws aimed at regulating aviation safety or airspace efficiency, laws that impair the reasonable use by drones of the airspace, and laws that conflict with FAA regulations are preempted.
3. However, local governments may regulate UAS under certain conditions. Examples of local laws that are not likely to be preempted include: (1) laws aimed at objectives other than aviation safety or airspace efficiency (e.g., protection of wildlife) that do not impair the reasonable use by drones of the airspace; (2) laws regulating the location of drone takeoff and landing areas; (3) laws that prohibit, restrict, or sanction operations by drones in the immediate reaches of property; (4) laws concerning where a drone operator can be located while conducting operations; and (5) drone registration requirements that do not regulate aviation safety or the efficient use of the airspace.
4. The City has determined that in light of the increased use of UAS, which frequently fly very close to wildlife, and which can intrude on people’s privacy, it is appropriate to impose restrictions on the use of UAS within the boundaries of the City to protect the privacy of the residents and visitors of the City of Pacific Grove, and to protect wildlife and birds including, but not limited to disturbing animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young, or other critical life history functions.
5. This ordinance amends Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) to include a prohibition against the use of UAS for recreational purposes anywhere within the City.
6. Harbor seal “puppy” season starts in February according to the Marine Mammal Center’s Your Guide to Seeing Harbor Seal Pups in California, April 10, 2025: “Harbor seal pupping season varies widely across the regional populations. Seal pups are born progressively later in the year farther north along the Pacific coast, starting in February in Baja California and up until October in parts of Washington State. In California, depending on how far north or south you are, harbor seal pups are born between February and June.” (Found here: https://www.marinemammalcenter.org/news/your-guide-toseeing-harbor-seal-pups-incalifornia#:~:text=In%20California%2C%20depending%20on%20how,born%20between %20February%20and%20June.&text=Harbor%20seal%20pups%20depend%20on,the%2 0pup%20to%20grow%20strong). Based on this timeline, it is critical to adopt this 4901-0503-7194 v3
ordinance as soon as possible to ensure that the Harbor seals’ puppy season is not disturbed by UAS.
7. Because of the findings set forth above, the City Council finds that this Ordinance should be adopted on an urgency basis to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare in accordance with Government Code §§ 36934 and 36937(b).
8. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.
9. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and, assuming arguendo that this ordinance is a “project” subject to CEQA, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the following categorical exemptions:
Class 1 Existing Facilities exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15301, because the ordinance entails operation and permitting of/within existing public areas and facilities; Class 4 Minor Alterations of Land exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15304, because the ordinance addresses permits authorizing the temporary use of UAS which will not involve the removal of any trees and will have negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; Class 7 and Class 8 exemptions in CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308, because the primary purpose of the ordinance is to protect the City’s natural resources and environment (e.g., Marine Protected Areas and wildlife); and the common sense exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing Facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Existing Municipal Code chapter 11.72, entitled “Aircraft Landing” shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety as follows:
Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing; Recreational UAS Prohibited) Section 11.72.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
“Aircraft” means any device invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air. “City Manager” means the City’s City Manager or their designee. “Chief of Police” means the Chief of the Pacific Grove Police Department, or their designee. 4901-0503-7194 v3
“Operate” shall mean use and control, and includes flying over. “Person” means any individual or entity of any kind.
“Uncrewed Aircraft System” or “UAS” means any device that flies, whether remotely piloted or autonomous, which includes devices commonly known as drones or model aircrafts, that operates without a pilot onboard, and associated elements, including communication links and control equipment. “Recreational UAS” means UAS operated by any person for hobby or recreational purposes.
Section 11.72.020 Launch or landing of aircraft prohibited. (a) It is unlawful for any person to launch or land an aircraft, including a helicopter, or UAS, without a permit.
(b) Exceptions.
1. A permit is issued by the City Manager;
2. The landing of an emergency aircraft is authorized by the Chief of Police.
Section 11.72.030 Recreational UAS prohibited.
No person shall launch, land, or operate Recreational UAS anywhere in the City except when such operation is expressly authorized by federal and/or state law.
Section 11.72.040 Violations and penalties.
(a) It is unlawful and declared a public nuisance for any person to violate any provision of this chapter.
(b) Violation of this chapter may result in seizure and impound of the UAS and shall be punished as set forth in Title 1 of this code.
(c) Each and every day a violation is maintained, caused, aided, abetted, concealed, suffered, or permitted is a separate offense.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
4901-0503-7194 v3
SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 4th day of February, 2026, by a four-fifths vote of the Council as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Alex Lorca, City Attorney
Outlook
RE: Agenda item 11B the Drone Ordinance
From foxx swamp <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/2/2026 4:47 PM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Mayor Smith and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to ask that you Adopt the Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS. Our wildlife is faced daily with disturbances and as we have said in the past, they also face the effects of climate change. This ordinance will help our law enforcement and give them the tools to protect our wildlife and our community from unnecessary disturbances.
Once you have dealt with the unnecessary recreational drone disturbances, I urge you to keep discussing the scientific and commercial drone flights. Particularly I would urge the requirement of monitors with local knowledge our wildlife.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kim Akeman
Outlook
Drones & Offshore Oil Drilling Update
From andree brisson <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 9:19 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]>; City Manager <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Honorable Mayor, City Council, & City Manager,
I serve as Vice Chair on the BNRC; I contact you now as a resident.
I support the Urgency Ordinance regarding drones. It is critical to protect wildlife- especially as breeding season approaches- as well as the privacy of residents and visitors. Drones further create noise and are a blight on our scenery and views.
Additionally, there are new developments with regard to offshore oil drilling- specifying Central and Southern California for lease sales in 2027.
https://saveourshores.org/drilling/?
fbclid=IwY2xjawPwQ0ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4MWR5azdwMzBMUEpFTTg0c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQ MjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtVmI9fOk-iLzCPl7jJBi2VFZ5AKD703_xxkGdQlXYqHQlvQLWjK9F_rO85_aem_R8WPYROx5ecoKhJ4w-3CNA Respectfully,
Andrée Brisson
PG Resident
Outlook
Proposed Drone Ordinance, Agenda item 11B
From Lisa Ciani <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 5:25 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members,
I urge you to unanimously approve the proposed ordinance to help protect our coastal wildlife and the privacy of residents and visitors. PG has such a strong culture of stewardship of our natural resources, and your support is needed for our wildlife and all the volunteers on the coast who are frustrated in their protection efforts by increasing wildlife disturbance resulting from manmade perceived “predators”.
In my eleven years of experience monitoring Black Oystercatcher nesting activity for the Central Coast Black Oystercatcher (BLOY) Monitoring Project, I have witnessed the distress of nesting BLOYs trying to chase away drones, which they perceive as predators, and then staying away from their nest for as much as 20+ minutes, presumably to avoid leading the predator back to their nest but leaving the nest vulnerable to real predators and other risks.
I’ve spoken with many drone pilots, and they are often apologetic, unaware that the disturbance they’ve caused interferes significantly with incubating eggs or feeding and sheltering chicks or getting the rest needed for the parents to feed themselves and restore their energy supplies. Those drone operators immediately pack up their drones. On the other hand, drone pilots can be dismissive or belligerent and go right on with their activity. An outright ban on recreational drones is necessary to enable effective enforcement of wildlife disturbance regulations.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue for our special community with such a uniquely beautiful coastline, abundance and diversity of wildlife, and devoted stewards who want to protect our precious resources. Please take this important step by approving the proposed drone ordinance unanimously.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ciani
Pacific Grove
Outlook
Opposing offshore drilling and seabed mining
From Anne Downs <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 9:02 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] I support the City of Pacific Grove’s opposition to Federal and State offshore drilling for oil and gas and seabed mining. I fully support the City Council submitting a comment letter and adopt a resolution to affirm the City’s opposition to offshore drilling and seabed mining, and joining the Local Governments OCS Coordination Program linking our local coastal communities to protect our communities and our natural resources.
Thank you,
Anne and Doug Downs
P.G. residents since 1979
Outlook
2/4/26 City Council Agenda Item 11.B
From Jane Haines <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 4:37 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]>; Pierik, Brian A. <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor Smith and Members of the City Council,
I urge your adoption tonight of the proposed urgency ordinance described in Council agenda item 11.B, to ban recreational drones in order to protect Black Legged Oystercatchers and Harbor seals. The ordinance is needed now because the harbor seal pupping season starts this month, and the Black-Legged Oyster Catcher breeding and nesting season starts next month.
Please heed the dozens of letters from knowledgeable persons that you’ve received in recent months describing the need for such protection by complying with the five staff recommendations in tonight’s item 11.B agenda report.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Haines
February 4, 2026
RE: Support of 11B Emergency Ordinance
Dear Pacific Grove City Council and staff;
I am writing in support of 11 B which will provide a ban on recreational drones, for timely protection of Black Oystercatchers and Harbor seals during the approaching breeding, nesting, and pupping season. The urgency ordinance is needed because pupping season starts this month and BLOY breeding and nesting season starts next month.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this important issue to our community, its welfare, environmental health, and economic viability.
Jill Kleiss
Pacific Grove Resident
Outlook
11B: Adopt Urgency Ordinance to Prohibit Recreational UAS From Vicki Pearse <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 9:31 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Pierik, Brian A. <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] To: Pacific Grove City Council Members
A very brief and urgent message for tonight:
VOTE YES, please, on agenda item 11B.
Adopt Urgency Ordinance to Prohibit Recreational Drones.
All of your votes are needed on this simple ruling.
All of you expressed support at the last meeting but then, inexplicably, several of you voted No.
The essence of this ruling was adopted two years ago but never implemented.
Perhaps that's why it has become an
Urgency Ordinance?
It is time, well past time, to adopt and enforce this one safety measure for our wildlife.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Vicki Pearse
Pacific Grove resident
Outlook
Support of agenda item 11B
From Lila Seldin <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 6:57 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing in support of agenda item 11 B - the regulation of uncrewed aircraft systems. We appreciate the efforts between our city and the police chief to further protect our wildlife and our privacy for our community.
My friends and I clean our shoreline daily and have witnessed disturbances from drones to our shorebirds, nesting birds,including our California Central Coast Black Oystercatcher and our beloved harbor seals. The improved ordinance will help protect harbor seals, other wildlife and human privacy from drone harassment, unknowing or intentional. For our Black Oystercatcher birds and harbor seals, drone disturbance can result in loss of eggs, chicks, or pups.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Lila and Cal Seldin,
Volunteers and Residents of Pacific Grove
[email protected]
[email protected]
Outlook
Support for Urgency Ordinance Banning Recreational Drones – Agenda Item 11B From Stephanie Turcotte <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 7:32 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> Cc City Manager <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor Smith and Members of the Pacific Grove City Council, I am writing in support of Agenda Item 11B, the proposed Urgency Ordinance to immediately ban recreational drone use in Pacific Grove.
This urgency ordinance is critical for the timely protection of black oystercatchers and harbor seals as we enter their most sensitive periods of the year. Harbor seal pupping season begins this month, and black oystercatcher breeding and nesting season begins next month. Recreational drone disturbance during these periods poses a real and immediate risk to wildlife.
Because the urgency ordinance requires six affirmative votes to take effect immediately, I respectfully urge the Council to support this measure unanimously. Immediate action is needed to reduce disturbance during these critical life stages and to provide clear, enforceable protection for coastal wildlife right now—not months from now.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking timely action to protect Pacific Grove’s coastal wildlife and natural resources.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Turcotte Edenholm
Outlook
Item 11B - URGENT
From Patsy Volpe <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 7:20 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Please! Stop the drones! Seal pupping season starts soon as well as black oyster catchers’ breeding time.
Drones are disruptive, not just to our wildlife but to humans as well.
Please consider this request. Can we please leave PG a little bit wild? Patsy Volpe
Pacific Grove, CA
(40 year resident)
Agenda No. 13 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction regarding regulation of electric bikes and other electric mobility devices
CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections:
15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation regarding the regulatory landscape of human powered bicycles, e-bikes, and other electric mobility devices.
1. 2. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding amendments, if any, to the existing ordinance.
Provide direction to staff whether the amended ordinance should be presented to the Traffic Safety Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council.
3. DISCUSSION
I. Background.
The City of Pacific Grove’s municipal code includes limited regulations relating to electric bikes (e-bikes), and limited regulations relating to electric scooters and pedicabs. E-bikes are proliferating and bringing with them some impacts on pedestrians and traffic. In this staff report, when we refer to bicycles, we mean human powered bicycles; electric bicycles will be referred to as e-bikes.
E-bikes are not the only electric/motorized conveyances that we are seeing on the roads and on bike paths and trails: other devices include scooters, electric mobility devices (commonly referred to as Segways), pedicabs, and motorized boards.
In this report, we will summarize the City’s current regulations, regulations from the City of Monterey and the County of Monterey, what state law allows us (and does not allow us) to do, and then requested direction from the Council.
Attached hereto for the Council’s convenience are copies of the City’s relevant provisions, Section 21207.5 of the Vehicle Code, relating to local authority over the operation of e-bikes, and a slide deck from the Transportation Authority of Monterey County regarding e-bike regulations and resources.
II. Existing local and state laws
City of Pacific Grove regulations (PGMC §§ 14.08.015 – 016, 14.08.020 – 025) City of Pacific Grove regulations (PGMC §§ 14.08.015 – 016, 14.08.020 – 025) The municipal code provides limited regulations of bicycles and for e-bikes:
Bicycles and e-bikes are prohibited in Perkins’ Park and Lovers Point Park.
E-bikes are further prohibited from the Pacific Grove Golf Links, El Carmelo Cemetery, and property leeward of Ocean View Blvd from the city boundary to Seventeenth Street (except on paved portions of the recreational trail).
Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are permitted on the recreational trail, as are electric personal assistive mobility devices (aka segway), and motorized boards provided they do not exceed 12mph.
Pedestrians must use paved section of the recreational trail so as not to impede bicycle traffic.
Pedicabs and motorized scooters are prohibited on the recreational trail, all public parks, golf links, and El Carmalo Cemetery.
The recreational trail is the “recreational walking and biking trail running along the city's waterfront from the city boundary on the east to Seventeenth Street on the west.” PGMC §
14.08.015.
The Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail is the 18-mile, paved, car-free path running along the former Southern Pacific Railroad tracks between Castroville and Pacific Grove. Each city has its own bicycle/e-bike regulations.
The City of Monterey has bike rules for the trail on their website, and allows all classes of e-bikes on the Trail, and on all Class I Multiuse Paths (as defined); motorized scooters are prohibited on the Trail.
Additionally, the city’s code prohibits riding bicycles in areas designated by council resolution (not including bikeways).
The County of Monterey allows the use of e-bikes to the same extent and at the same locations as the use of bicycles, and requires both to yield to pedestrians and equestrians on county trails.
California Law
Bicycles and e-bikes
Bicycle is defined in Vehicle Code section 231, and includes electric bicycles, separately defined by CVC § 312.5. E-bikes are divided into Class 1, 2, and 3; Class 1 and 2 bikes can reach a top speed of 20mph, and Class 3 can reach a top speed of 28mph. As noted above, for convenience when we refer to bicycles we mean bicycles propelled by human power, and electric bicycles will be referred to as e-bikes.
The City’s ability to regulate bicycles (including e-bikes) is limited by the Vehicle Code, which governs the operation of vehicles and bicycles on streets and highways. CVC § 21200 et seq. Local governments can regulate the operation and parking of bicycles “on pedestrian or bicycle facilities,” provided the regulations are not in conflict with the Vehicle Code. CVC § 21100(h) expressly identifies that local governments can regulate the operation of bicycles on public sidewalks.
The vehicle code prohibits the operation of an e-bike on any bicycle path or trail, bikeway, or bicycle lane established under CVC § 21207 (i.e., bicycle lanes on highways), equestrian trail, or hiking/recreational trail unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway, or unless the local government adopts an ordinance to permit the operation over its trails and pathways. In addition, the local government can prohibit, by ordinance, any or all classes of e-bikes on equestrian trails, or hiking/recreational trails. CVC § 21207.5.
Reading the above provisions together, a local government can regulate the operation (and parking) of bicycles and e-bikes on sidewalk, bike paths, and trails; provided that e-bikes must be allowed on bike paths along roadways.
Pedicabs
Pedicabs are two or three wheeled bicycles, including e-bikes, with side cars or trailers, or similar Pedicabs are two or three wheeled bicycles, including e-bikes, with side cars or trailers, or similar device, that transport passengers for hire; and 4-wheeled devices that is primarily or exclusively pedal-powered, seats up to 8, and cannot travel faster than 15mph. CVC § 467.5.
Pedicabs cannot operate on a highway unless so authorized by local authority, and can adopt more stringent operating or equipment requirements that the Vehicle Code. CVC § 21215(a)(6); 21215.5.
Motorized scooters
Motorized scooters are 2-wheeled devices usually with handlebars and a floorboard to stand on. CVC § 407.5.
The City can regulate the operation and parking of scooters on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. CVC § 21225. Scooters must be allowed where Class II e-bikes are permitted in bicycle lanes, CVC § 21229, but notwithstanding any other provision, local authority can prohibit them from any bicycle path, trail, or bikeway. CVC § 21230.
Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices (aka segways) An EPAMD is an electric a self-balancing, nontandem two-wheeled device, that is not greater than 20 inches deep and 25 inches wide and can turn in place, designed to transport only one person. CVC § 313.
To protect the health and safety, local agencies may regulate the time, place, and manner of operation, including prohibiting the use outright, or prohibiting the use in specified areas. CVC § 21282.
Electrical Motorized Boards
No provisions expressly allow local authorities to regulate the use of these devices.
III. What the City can and can’t do
Bicycles and e-bikes
CAN regulate/prohibit the operation and parking of bicycles and e-bikes on sidewalks, bike paths and trails, equestrian trails, hiking trails, other public property CANNOT limit the use of e-bikes on bike paths that are on or adjacent to roadways.
CANNOT regulate operation on roadways (public streets and highways) Pedicabs
CAN regulate/prohibit use on roadways, trails, bike paths, public property. These cannot operate on roadways at all without an ordinance allowing it.
Motorized scooters
CAN regulate/prohibit the operation and parking of scooters on sidewalks, bicycle paths, trails or bikeways.
Electrical Personal Assistive Mobility Devices
CAN regulate the time, place, and manner of operation
CAN prohibit operation everywhere in the City, or prohibit operation in specified areas Electrical Motorized Board
CANNOT regulate
IV. Direction Requested
The City of Monterey currently allows the use of e-bikes on the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail, and the County of Monterey allows the use of e-bikes on county trails to the same extent that it allows bicycles. Neither include a speed limit.
Does the City Council wish to limit which class of e-bike is permitted on the Trail? Does the City Council wish to maintain the speed limit of 12 mph on the Trail? Does the City Council want to regulate/prohibit use of bicycles, e-bikes, other electric devices on hiking trails?
Does the City Council want to regulate/prohibit the use of bicycles, e-bikes, or other electric devices on sidewalks?
Does the Council wish to keep the current prohibitions and restrictions for bicycles and e-bikes in the code? As a reminder, these are the restrictions:
Bicycles and e-bikes are prohibited in Perkins’ Park and Lovers Point Park.
E-bikes are further prohibited from the Pacific Grove Golf Links, El Carmelo Cemetery, and property leeward of Ocean View Blvd from the city boundary to Seventeenth Street (except on paved portions of the recreational trail).
Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are permitted on the recreational trail, as are electric personal assistive mobility devices (aka segway), and motorized boards provided they do not exceed 12mph.
Pedestrians must use paved section of the recreational trail so as not to impede bicycle traffic.
Pedicabs and motorized scooters are prohibited on the recreational trail, all public parks, golf links, and El Carmalo Cemetery.
The recreational trail is the “recreational walking and biking trail running along the city's waterfront from the city boundary on the east to Seventeenth Street on the west.” PGMC §
14.08.015.
Provided the City Council gives direction to amend the existing municipal code, does the City Council want input on the draft ordinance from the Traffic Safety Committee? Suggestions: separate out regulations for human-powered bicycles, e-bikes, and other electric mobility devices for ease of use by the public.
Note: the ordinance will include a reasonable accommodation exemption under the ADA.
OPTIONS
1. Take alternative action related to this subject
2. Take no action
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Costs associated enforcement of the City codes.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
PGMC §§ 14.08.015, 14.08.016, 14.08.020, 14.08.021, 14.08.023, 14.08.024, 14.08.02 CVC § 21207.5
TAMC E-Bikes: Regulations and Resources
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1)
City of Pacific Grove, CA
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Title 14. Public Property
Chapter 14.08. PARKS
§ 14.08.015. Recreational trail as public park.
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "public park" includes, without limitation, all property included within the recreational walking and biking trail running along the city's waterfront from the city boundary on the east to Seventeenth Street on the west.
(Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.016. Recreational trail – Foot traffic prohibited on bicycle portion.
It is unlawful for any person to walk, run, jog, permit animals or otherwise convey himself/herself on foot along the portion of the recreational trail (defined at PGMC § 14.08.015) paved, marked and set aside for use of bicycles in a manner that impedes the operation of bicycles or other permitted vehicles on that portion of the trail.
(Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.020. Bicycle and e-bike restrictions.
It is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or otherwise operate a bicycle or electric bicycle in Perkins' Park, Perkins' Park being all areas seaward of Ocean View Boulevard between Lovers Point and the Esplanade.
It is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or otherwise operate a bicycle or electric bicycle in Lovers Point Park, to include any property located seaward of Ocean View Boulevard from the city boundary on the east to Seventeenth Street on the west, except on the paved portion of the recreation trail defined in PGMC § 14.08.015.
(Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.021. Electric bicycle use restrictions.
The term "electric bicycle" is defined in California Vehicle Code Sections 312.5 or 24016. Separate definitions apply to Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, it is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or otherwise operate a Class 1 or Class 2 electric bicycle as follows:
In Perkins' Park, defined by PGMC § 14.08.020(a), the Pacific Grove Golf Links, or El Carmelo Cemetery.
(2)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(a)
(b)
On any property located seaward of Ocean View Boulevard from the city boundary on the east to Seventeenth Street on the west, except when operated within applicable speed limits on the paved portion of the recreation trail, defined by PGMC § 14.08.015.
Class 3 electric bicycles are prohibited in all parks, the Pacific Grove Golf Links, El Carmelo Cemetery. and upon the recreational trail, defined in PGMC § 14.08.015. (Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.023. Speed limit on recreational trail.
It is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or operate a bicycle, a Class 1 or 2 electric bicycle, an electric personal assistive mobility device (as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 313), or a motorized board (as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 313.5) at a speed equal to or in excess of 12 miles per hour on the recreational trail defined in PGMC § 14.08.015.
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a person shall not operate any vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the surface and width of the trail, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of any person or property.
(Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.024. Use of pedicab prohibited in recreational trail, in all public parks, golf links and El Carmelo Cemetery.
The term "pedicab" is defined to mean:
A bicycle that has three or more wheels, that transports, or is capable of transporting, passengers on seats attached to the bicycle, that is operated by an individual, and that is used for transporting passengers for receipt of any form of consideration; or A bicycle with a single unarticulated frame that pulls a sidecar or similar device that transports, or is capable of transporting, passengers on seats attached to the sidecar or similar device, that is operated by an individual, and that is used for transporting passengers for receipt of any form of consideration.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, it is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or otherwise operate a "pedicab" on any portion of the recreational trail (defined in PGMC § 14.08.015), in all public parks, golf links, and El Carmelo Cemetery. (Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 14.08.025. Use of motorized scooters prohibited in recreational trail, in all public parks, golf links and El Carmelo Cemetery.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, it is unlawful for any person to ride or wheel or otherwise operate a "motorized scooter," as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 407.5, on any portion of the recreational trail (defined in PGMC § 14.08.015), in all public parks, golf links, and El Carmelo Cemetery.
This section shall not apply to any ADA "pedestrian" defined by California Vehicle Code Section 467(b).
(Ord. 20-004 § 2, 2020)
§ 21207.5. Motorized or electric bicycles; prohibited operation, CA VEHICLE § 21207.5 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West's Annotated California Codes
Vehicle Code (Refs & Annos)
Division 11. Rules of the Road
Chapter 1. Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws
Article 4. Operation of Bicycles (Refs & Annos)
West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 21207.5
§ 21207.5. Motorized or electric bicycles; prohibited operation Effective: January 1, 2023
Currentness
(a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation. (b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on that trail. (c) The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department's jurisdiction.
Credits
(Added by Stats.1975, c. 987, p. 2331, § 7. Amended by Stats.1977, c. 664, p. 2180, § 1; Stats.1979, c. 373, p. 1383, § 323; Stats.2015, c. 568 (A.B.1096), § 5, eff. Jan. 1, 2016; Stats.2022, c. 343 (A.B.1909), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2023.) West's Ann. Cal. Vehicle Code § 21207.5, CA VEHICLE § 21207.5 Current with all laws through Ch. 790 of 2025 Reg.Sess., and Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 2025.
End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
E-Bikes: Regulations
and Resources
Janneke Strause
Associate Transportation Planner
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
EC TAMC
E-Bikes: Regulations
and Resources
Janneke Strause
Associate Transportation Planner
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Agenda
e E-bike overview
。 Benefits and
challenges
。 Where can | ride?
e Education and
resources
Agenda
• E-bike overview
• Benefits and
challenges
• Where can I ride?
• Education and
resources
Trends
U.S. E-bike Market EVE
Size, by Drive Type, 2020 - 2030 (USD Billion) GRAND VIEW RESEARCH
15.6%
U.S. Market CAGR,
2023 - 2030
$1.9B
2020 2021 2022 2023
@ Belt
2024
Drive
2025
Chain
2026
Drive
2027 2028 2029 2030
Trends
What is an e-bike?
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Type Pedal-Assist Only Throttle-Assist Pedal-Assist with Higher Speed
Top Speed 20 mph 20 mph 28 mph
Description The motor provides
assistance only
while pedaling and
stops when the
bike reaches 20
mph.
The motor is
activated by a
throttle and does
not require
pedaling.
• Riders must be at
least 16 years old.
• Helmets are
mandatory for all
riders.
• Passengers are not
allowed.
• Must include front
and rear lights or
reflective materials.
California Vehicle Code Section 312.5
An e-bike is NOT:
California Vehicle Code Section 312.5
1. A two-wheeled vehicle powered by an
electric or gas motor that can be ridden at
20 mph on motor power alone.
2. A vehicle that is modified to have its
operable pedals removed.
Modification Compliance (AB-1774)
Bill Text - AB-1774 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
1. Prohibits tampering or modifications that
change an e-bikes speed capabilities
2. Bans the sale of products or devices that
can modify speed
3. Violations will be treated as criminal
offense
Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices,
and storage batteries (SB-1271)
Bill Text - SB-1271 Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries.
1. Establishes battery safety standards by an
accredited testing laboratory for
compliance with a specified standard
2. Clarifies e-bike classifications (as
described previously)
3. Introduces new labeling and advertising
requirements displaying classification and
battery compliance
ONES
I IANIIA NAAA AGA A AAA NANA AAA NANA]
‘ AN AN DN HY ly 如 yy) Mt it Mi WN 由 YW PON
Hy Ay 可 WW NÓ
4 NN IN
effort.
You You can ride further and faster with less can ride further and faster with less effort.
You can more easily commit to ecofriendly transportation.
= 4 | FARMERS MARKET I | =a ff
AVENUE
S AY
10AM TO 3PM
You can more easily commit to ecofriendly transportation.
E-bikes make bicycling accessible to a
wider range of people.
E-bikes make bicycling accessible to a
wider range of people.
Low Emission Transportation
Urban Transport Options
CO2 EMISSIONS COMPARED O)
™ Co2 Per Person Per Mile
300
200
100
Cars Public Transport
E-Bikes Walkng
n / MacArthur / Cherry
Low Emission Transportation
Challenges with E-bikes
• Some e-bike riders
pass other cyclists
and walkers at too
high a speed
• Collisions at higher
speed are more
dangerous
• Not all multi-use path
users know trail
etiquette
• Difficult to enforce ebike regulations
• More people are
bicycling, but there’s a
lack of safety
education
• Motorcycle-type bikes
are being illegally
ridden like e-bikes
Where can I ride?
• AB-1909 Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill prevents cities from restricting access to e-bike riders in places like bicycle paths or unpaved trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes.
• People may ride e-bikes on roadways but are subject to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)—which covers basic rules of the road, like going with the flow of traffic and obeying lights and signs. • Local authorities could still block access to e-bikes on certain equestrian trails or hiking and recreational trails.
• The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department’s jurisdiction.
What Is an E-Bike? A Guide to California E-Bike Classifications. - CalBike City of Pacific Grove
• Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes are prohibited from
certain areas defined in code 14.08.020
• Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited in all parks code
14.08.015
Chapter 14.08 PARKS
County of Monterey
• Monterey County Code 14.12.060.I, currently
states, “Electric bicycles are prohibited from all
County park dirt trails, unless authorized by the
Director”
• In December 2022, an Ad-Hoc Committee was
formed to research E-bike use
• In June 2024, Draft ordinance was presented to Parks
Commission
• In October 2024, Revised draft was approved for
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
Public Survey
• Online survey was conducted for 3 months in
English and Spanish
• 1,300 respondents
• Direct email, newspapers, social media and
County website
• 63% in favor of allowing E-bikes on County Parks
multi-use trails
Monterey County Code 14.12 Update -
Draft Ordinance
• Allow Class 1, 2 and 3 E-bikes on County Parks
dirt trails
• No electric motorcycles, mopeds, scooters or
other modalities
• Safe passage guidelines
• All passing must occur at 5 mph or less
• All trail users give way to equestrians, bikers give
way to pedestrians
State Parks’ e-bike policy:
• Any e-bike is allowed on a
public roadways.
• Class 2 or 3 e-bikes are
not allowed on trails or
controlled-access roads.
• Class 1 e-bikes may be
designated for use only
on trails and controlledaccess roads that already
allow traditional (nonelectric) bicycles.
California E-bike Safety Legislation
• AB 2234 – Authorizes a local authority within the
County of San Diego, or the County of San Diego, to
prohibit individuals under the age of 12 from
operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.
• AB 1778 – Authorizes a local authority within the
County of Marin, or the County of Marin, to adopt an
ordinance to prohibit a person under the age of 16
years from operating a Class 2 e-bike.
• Cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola support e-bike
safety education in schools, enforcement of illegal
e-bikes, and lobbying legislators for statewide
regulations.
Resources
• CalBike
• What Is an E-Bike? A Guide to California E-Bike
Classifications. - CalBike
• People for Bikes
• Electric Bikes | PeopleForBikes
• For Land Managers - Electric Bikes | PeopleForBikes
• Online Safety Training
• New E-Bike Training Resources Come Online – CalBike
• E-bike Battery Safety Tips
• How to Prevent an Electric Bike Fire - Consumer Reports • Trail Etiquette
• Passing Etiquette - MORCA - Monterey Off Road Cycling Association Janneke Strause
Associate Transportation Planner
[email protected]
EC TAMC
Janneke Strause
Associate Transportation Planner
[email protected]
Agenda No. 13 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Discussion regarding Chautauqua Hall ownership, uses and responsibilities CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to investigate and document ownership, rights, allowable activities, and responsibilities for the use of Chautauqua Hall.
1. Direct staff to return to a future City Council Meeting with updates to City Council Policy 100-1 Chautauqua Hall Building, and any necessary recorded document amendments proposed to manage the future use of Chautauqua Hall.
2. DISCUSSION
The current documents relating to the use of Chautauqua Hall are contradictory to the present use of the Hall in the following ways:
None of the currently available documents clearly note the ownership of the Hall. A title search is underway.
A 1922 document (Attachment 1), labeled “Boy Scout Deed Restrictions" requires certain racial and ethnic groups to be excluded, no alcohol shall be allowed, and other restrictions that are not currently legal or desirable.
The same document says that the Hall was sold by Del Monte Properties to the City of Pacific Grove for the sum of $10.00.
The 1988 Council Policy (Attachment 2) for the use of the Hall states the Scouts (Boy, Girl and Brownies) will have first priority on the use of the Hall, and will have use of the upstairs attic and the downstairs southwest room. This document states that the building was deeded to the City with no restrictions on use and also states the building was acquired from The Boy Scouts of America. Any actual deeds or documents of these transactions are missing, hence the title search.
The 1988 document, referencing a 1981 policy, prohibits the Hall being used as a “dancehall”.
In conversations with Library, Museum, Friends of Chautauqua Hall, and current users of the Hall, the following activities seem to suit those who envision using Chautauqua Hall in ways that are closer to its original purpose as a cultural center.
Musical events and concerts (so an improved sound system would be ideal) Meetings, lectures, educational programs (groups will require better bathrooms) Weddings and social events (requiring a suitable catering kitchen) Receptions (an entrance area, and ADA appropriate access will be needed) Current users of the Hall will need to make other arrangements to use a different location for the duration of demolition and construction, and perhaps for subsequent use once construction is complete.
Further, policies for reserving the Hall will need to be drafted.
We have heard from Al and Friends that they have reached agreements to relocate well before demolition will occur. Other groups, ballroom dancing and Jazzercize have been temporarily relocated to the Community Center when there are scheduling conflicts. Documents do confirm that the Recreation Department is the responsible party for scheduling, and assuring that insurance and use policies are in place. The Fee Schedule is noted as the way rental fees are charged, as well as which groups are exempt from paying for their use of the Hall.
OPTIONS
1. Provide alternative direction to staff regarding necessary documentation and/or allowable uses.
2. Do nothing, allowing legal contradictions to stand
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff time and legal expenses title search and for any necessary review.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Boy Scout Deed Restrictions
City Council Policy 100-1 Chautauqua Hall Building
Agenda No. 13 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Recreation Board Committee Recommendation, Metrics Request CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the recommendation report prepared by the Recreation Board and provide direction to staff.
1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item.
DISCUSSION
At the December Recreation Board meeting, the Recreation Board voted and approved the Chair to submit a City Council Committee Recommendation form for Council consideration. The Recreation Board is requesting staff to generate numerous metrics that are associated with the Recreation Department and present those metrics to the Recreation Board 3 times per year. The Recreation Board's submission is attached to this report, along with the 9 questions/metrics that they are requesting staff to generate and report upon.
City staff has reviewed the list of requested metrics. Though some of the information is simple to extract from Civic Rec, which is our reservation software, not all of the information is readily available.
In order to compile the requested information, the Civic Rec software will need to be modified, which staff anticipates costing between $2,000 -$3,000. Staff will need to manually extract data from Civic Rec, which will be extremely time-consuming. It is anticipated that the initial setup would be approximately 40 hours, with monthly staffing hours ranging between 10-15 hours to maintain the database, and an additional 8-10 hours, three (3) times per year, to prepare and present the data to the Recreation Board.
Currently, City Staff provides the Recreation Board with an annual programming update following the summer season.
OPTIONS
Do nothing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Civic Rec, the City's registration program software, will need to be modified, and this is anticipated to Civic Rec, the City's registration program software, will need to be modified, and this is anticipated to be between $2,000 and $3,000, which would be derived from the recreation operations budget. The recreation department has not budgeted for any extra expenses, as typical purchases are for programming supplies and materials, and funds get exhausted quickly once the programming season commences. City staff may need to wait until FY 2026/27 to commence software changes to ensure that there is adequate budget to operate all programs for FY 2025/26.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Written public comment
Recommendation Form, Rec Board
Outlook
item 13C Recommendation of the Recreation Board
From Andrew Kubica <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 11:14 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am surprised that this item, 13C, is even being brought to the city council. The City has had a revitalized recreation program that has been improving over the last few years. It would seem that the information being requested: total registration numbers, number of participants in each program per season and annually should be readily available otherwise how has staff been hiring enough counselors for the various programs. Grant, donations, and scholarship numbers should also be readily available since the grants were applied for and scholarships provided.
Regarding the estimated $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 cost for software, I believe that expense is well within the budget authorization of the city manager. I am fairly certain that is within the budget that can be absorbed by Public Works/ Recreation department since the information is essential for informing the city council of the success of the recreation program in the city.
Please support the Pacific grove recreation and the recommendation of the Recreation Board Thank You
Andrew Kubica
Metric
Method of
Collection
1 Total registrations in each program (per season and annually) Civic Rec
2 Number of unique participants in each program per month. (E.g. how many unique participants attend the Youth Center each month.) Civic Rec 3 Participant demographics (Age, school, etc)
Civic Rec
4 Program fill rates (Enrollment vs capacity)
Civic Rec
5 Program retention and re-enrollment rates (Taking into account participants that “age out”.) Civic Rec
6 Wait-lists (Number of programs with wait-lists, size of wait-lists, etc) Civic Rec
7 Facility utilization (E.g. the number of hours open per week) Rec Department
8 Subsidies / Financial Aid (total amount and number of subsidies); Grants, donations, and scholarships provided. (This data will likely need to come from the Finance Department.) Finance Dept
9 Partnerships and collaborations with schools, nonprofits, or clubs.
Rec Department