City staff, the Temecula Valley Unified School District and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office presented a multiagency briefing on e‑bikes and e‑motorcycles at the Temecula City Council’s final meeting of 2025, outlining education efforts, enforcement data and municipal code restrictions.

Staff framed the issue by explaining vehicle‑code classifications for e‑bikes and e‑motorcycles and recent state bills that affect local authority. The presentation cited recent legislation (as described to council) including AB 1096, AB 2234 (a San Diego County pilot), AB 544, AB 545, AB 965, AB 875 and SB 381. Public Works Director Ron Moreno reviewed Temecula’s municipal code (section 10.24.0.04) and noted that class 1 and 2 e‑bikes may be ridden on certain sidewalks and trails except in business districts, parks and sidewalks adjacent to schools, while class 3 e‑bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and trails across the city.

Temecula Valley Unified School District representative Tim described a district‑run online safety module and bike‑registration sticker pilot. Tim said the program — piloted at Vail Ranch Middle School and expanded districtwide — requires a 30–40 minute online module, parental sign‑off and optional bike registration; more than 1,000 students completed modules with expectations to exceed 1,700 by year end.

Lieutenant Vic Pearson of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office shared enforcement data: deputies recovered three stolen e‑bikes, investigated nine e‑bike‑related theft cases, impounded 11 illegally operated e‑motorcycles and investigated 26 e‑bike collisions this year (20 minor injuries, five no‑injury crashes and one major injury). Pearson said deputies are conducting targeted patrols in high‑risk corridors and that enforcement has included impoundments of high‑powered illegal devices.

Ernie Castro, president of Bike Temecula Valley, urged a balanced response — education, enforcement and parent involvement — and emphasized that many dangerous incidents involve illegal, high‑powered e‑motorcycles rather than legal e‑bikes.

Council members discussed state preemption limits on local age restrictions (noting the San Diego pilot is county‑specific), battery fire risks in other jurisdictions, infrastructure improvements to reduce conflicts and the importance of school and parent education. The council instructed staff to sign coalition letters seeking the SB381 informational hearing and to expand education content and best‑practice guidance for parents and retailers. No ordinance or new local restriction was adopted; council provided general direction to continue education, signage and interagency coordination.