For the second straight meeting, the Active Transportation Committee’s agenda for this evening includes a mysterious and vague reference to “municipal code updates”. While last meeting’s reference to these updates turned out to be a preview of the Staff’s proposed changes to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to conform to the passage of AB 1909, the so-called “omnibus bike bill”, I had to confirm with the Costa Mesa Police Department whether the current discussion was simply a continuation of that effort.

It is not: I can confirm that the “municipal code updates” in question this time around refer to the Staff’s proposed and long-awaited e-bike ordinance.

(Ranting Sidebar: I do not appreciate these extremely vague agendas, nor do I appreciate having to reach out to members of the Staff to figure out to what they refer. Under the Brown Act agendas for regular meetings must include “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting”, and for special meetings like this one, “the call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body.” With non-descriptive entries like “municipal code updates”, not only does the public have no idea what “business is to be transacted or discussed”, there is absolutely no way to discern whether there is any business whatsoever that can’t be discussed. May the members discuss “municipal code updates” such as adopting a beekeeping ordinance, revamping our retail cannabis laws, or anything else they desire? I would think they could, which smells of a Brown Act evasion, if not a violation. Staff should fix this. End of rant.)

I’ve already spilled plenty of digital ink on the subject of ebikes, so if you want my opinion on it, have at it. I’ve also written in print of my convictions that ebikes are, on the balance, good things, and that we should be writing rules to help them safely flourish rather than quash them as an inconvenience to drivers.

But don’t just take my word for it. Chris and Melissa Bruntlett, author of two very influential books advocating car-lite living and urban design (Curbing Traffic and Building the Cycling City), recently posted on X that “every shift away from space-hogging cars — regardless of fuel source — creates more opportunities for more social, resilient, age- and movement-friendly cities” (emphasis mine). I think this 100% correct. That’s not because the car is some kind of villain; on the contrary, the car is almost certainly the most essential and productive invention of the 20th century, and we owe an enormous amount of our prosperity and quality of life to it. But rather it is a recognition that, like many good things, they aren’t good all the time or in all places at all dosages.

But, if we are going to advocate moving away from 100% car dependency, I’ve been repeatedly told the city/county/state must provide a meaningful alternative, or else reform in this direction is just punishment. Which, despite its simplistic logic, has some truth in it. So I believe we must recognize that motorized micromobility options, which include ebikes but also scooters, small electric motorcycles, mopeds, motorized wheelchairs and other electric mobility devices, are far better substitutes for short car trips than either walking or pedal power alone, or even taking the bus given their limited routes and iffy schedules. Not everyone wants a workout (or can do one) as a side dish to the entree of daily living. And that’s the beauty and the opportunity of the ebike: it is a much worthier and attractive replacement for short car trips than either walking, acoustic bicycling, or transit, at least at the moment.

So does Costa Mesa’s active transportation future depend (at least partly) on getting ebike regulations right? Yeah, believe it or not, I think it does. So stay tuned for more updates on this topic.