City Council — March 9, 2026

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening, everyone and welcome to the March 9th 2026 special closed session meeting we're starting tonight at 530 roll call please

We can announce the item.

Oh, sorry would you announce the item please for

Recess to closed session item 2a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code five four nine five six point eight Property 478 fourth place Solvang California 8 p.m. 1 3 9 1 7 3 0 1 4 Agency negotiator Randy Murphy city manager negotiating party CRA Solvang RELC Under negotiation both price and terms item to be conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six point ninety-four one potential case

Thank you very much. Well, you're convened Reconvene but host the right word Welcome back. We're back from closed session. Madam Attorney, is there any reportable action please?

Thank you Mayor. Good evening. There is no reportable action on either item so that's Item 2A conference with real property negotiators no reportable action and Item 2B conference with legal counsel on anticipated litigation no reportable action thank you

Thank you. Then we are adjourned from our closed session at 610, and we'll start the open session at 630. Thank you

We need new chambers.

Good evening everyone and welcome to the Solvang Council meeting on March 9th, 2026. We'll begin at 630 this evening before we move forward I'd ask that everyone to silence their phones And we have a special guest, Ian Jacobson. Would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. Okay, we have a proclamation this evening that I will read in honoring Tracy Beard upon her retirement coming up on March 24th.

Whereas, Tracy Beard began serving as Executive Director of the Solvang Chamber of Commerce in August 2015 and has provided more than a decade of dedicated leadership in strengthening the economic vitality of the City of Solvang and the Greater San Ynez Valley. And whereas during her tenure, she advanced local economic development by launching economic summits, leading state of the city events and championing initiatives such as Shop the Heart of Santianez Valley and Jingle Mingle to promote Solvang businesses and tourism.

And whereas Tracy supported Hispanic owned and at risk businesses through partnerships with the Economic Development Collaborative and Small Business Development Center during and beyond the pandemic. And secured a $250,000 economic development partnership with the city of Solvang in 2017 to 2018 to support businesses and workforce development. And whereas her leadership and impact have been recognized through honors including the 2020 Congressional Woman of the Year Award presented by Congressman Salud Carbajal, recognition as one of the Pacific Coast Business Times Top 50 Most Influential Women Rotary Ethics Award recipient and recipient of Telly Bronze and Gold Awards for regional commercial production benefiting the City of Solvang. Now therefore be it resolved that I, Mayor David Brown along with the City Council of the City of Solvang California hereby honor and recognize Tracy Beard for her outstanding service leadership and commitment to the Solvange Chamber of Commerce and the broader Santa Ynez Valley community and extend sincere appreciation and best wishes upon her retirement.

In witness thereof, I have unto here set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Solvang, California to be affixed this ninth day of March 2026. Congratulations to Tracy Beard. She's not here but I believe we'll present this at the Economic Summit on Friday So when you see her, please send her congratulations on behalf of the city and all her endeavors.

Retirement, wow sounds great! Okay

At this time you may address council on items not on the agenda and on consent. Time limit is three minutes, we will start with in-person public comments

first. We have one request from Susie Townsend.

Hi. So I'm just here about the STR homestay issue and I'm just here to ask that you consider amending the current STR ordinance to include home include homestays. And I also you consider expanding the area which they are allowed to allow more residents to participate. The Homestay Program is 100 percent enforceable just along with the STR program with the software program that you have now that keeps everything available to you.

Homestays are essentially self-policing as the owner lives on site a homestay can significantly increase the ability for many of us longtime residents to remain in place, as well as we approach retirement looking for ways to supplement our income and that's all I have thank you

Sorry about my mic, why not? Is there anyone else that has any public comment? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Thank you we'll move on to our city manager's report and advanced calendar please

Yes, good evening Mr. Mayor and Council. I have a few things. We just had our most recent cleanup down over here at Lot 5 coordinated with Waste Management. They reported another successful event with just under 10,000 pounds or just under five tons of debris collected from Solvang residents going back to Q4 of last year Because it was a rainy day, we had just under 3 tons.

Quarter three was 7 1⁄2 tons which is the all-time record according to them for waste picked up in Solvang. And then going back to Q1 of last year, it was 5.78 tons so we're about a ton less So either we're not consuming as much or we're getting rid of more, and we don't have as much built up anymore. So that's a good sign. The next cleanup day is going to be Saturday May 16th so putting reminders out about that also a reminder about the ADA This is a self-evaluation and transition plan for the City of Solvang.

We are looking for input from the community and organizations assisting persons with disabilities Her feedback will assist in addressing and prioritizing current and future accessibility needs. And that information is available on our website, www.cityofsolvang.com There's also a survey out there for Friedenburg Canyon. We've talked about that a few times. That survey ends on March 20th. The ADA survey ends on April 30th So March 20th is at Supreme Court Canyon, talk about the one-way there for traffic as a possible solution. And then we have a couple of upcoming items at the next council meeting on the 23rd. There will be Presentation of the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

And we're also going to award a construction contract for the Alamo-Pentado Road Rehabilitation Project, that's the section north of Vyborg to the sea limit just about where Sunnyfield is. And there's also going to be a presentation from their marketing team to recap 2025. So there's a couple of long items on that agenda. So bring some popcorn and settle in because we'll be here for a little bit, and that's all I have for now.

Thank you any questions of the city manager? Wow doing must must be something going right okay

Item 6, Consent for

Routine Administrative

City Matters and is approved with one motion. These items are discussed only in request

of Council

Members. Government Code Section 532.32.3d aka AB 1234 and Government Code Section 84308 aka SB 1439 report out. Ex parte communications council comments requests.

Thank you. Blame it on the time change.

Any reports?

I have, since our last meeting, I attended our Eastern Management Association JPA water board meeting where I was acting as chair. And then I also attended a internal staff meeting with the sheriff's office and reviewed some of the data that we're seeing in our consent agenda today. I do have some comments that I'd like to make but I'll wait and save those for maybe let everybody else speak first it'll probably take a minute

I have a

motion and second. It's a great event and I just want to sort of say thank you to everybody that attended and all the chefs that were there. And all the winemakers Santa Barbara County has the most female winemakers in all of the United States. I think I've mentioned that before. fabulous event, raised a lot of money for women-oriented programs, scholarships and it was just a fantastic event. So I'm sorry if you missed it and if you were there thank you.

What was the dish that you served?

I did my Italian roast beef sliders they went fast.

I shouldn't have asked before dinner I'm sorry. Markie do you have anything?

I have nothing to report this time.

The only thing I would suggest, or sorry, the only thing I attended was the GSA meeting and I also went to the Women Winemakers and Culinary Foundation and was eating some of her food and drinking large amounts of wine.

That's it. Okay. I have a quick program. Of course my computer went out.

I wanted to make a comment because at the end of our last meeting there was some information that was shared with the Council and it occurred to me that I wanted to say that it was news to me and a surprise, so I think there's an implied transparency and trust contract between council and our city leadership in the public. And so I wanted to just simply disclose that I wasn't aware until our last meeting that the mayor was in a business that is a unique business with regard to the City of Solvang. I'm going to make a request of our staff and initially, I asked for the address of this particular issue to be done in closed session.

But I was also informed that we can't do closed session without consensus or without direction from attorneys from our city council. So what I would like to just simply say is if the business community did not hear from some of us, it was because we were not disclosed or unaware of the mayor's role in a particular new business venture. And I want to be responsible to those businesses, the businesses who are very vital to our city and vital to converting tax revenue into public services. So out of respect for those relationships, to be very clear that if they were expecting us to act, I can speak for myself, I was unaware So I do want to just take a moment and say why this is of concern to me in particular. It's not that the mayor's in business, we're a small town.

We have through many years dealt with leaders of the city who have businesses and we work through those issues to avoid areas of conflict This particular business and the nature of the business that the mayor is launching plans to earn revenue in a way that is...

Councilmember Rona? Yes. I believe this is getting a little too in the weeds for something that's not on the agenda.

Well, this is my area of comment. If you could let

me... And I will be

asking for direction.

Okay if we could get to the direction to staff.

I'm going to justify why I'm asking their direction

I just want to avoid an extended discussion on something that's not on the agenda.

So let me make my points. Legal counsel really only gave us advice with regard to the potential conflict as it relates to filing for disclosures of areas of financial interest Item 8C. The mayor is the CEO of this business that is building an application that acts as a concierge through the City of Solvang. And, the application raises a conflict since it's marketing to our 1.5 million visitors and marketing certain selected businesses to those visitors to the city. Some select businesses but not others, some select businesses and not all.

The app actually creates incentives to visit these select businesses, but leaves other businesses out. And for that promotion the mayor is asking for those businesses to pay him $250 a month for that treatment over others. That necessarily creates a Area of confusion for our potential confusion for our businesses. Where can our businesses be sure that the mayor is acting on the public's behalf, all stakeholders' behalves or those that are participating in his model?

Again I think this is getting outside the scope of what is allowed or envisioned by council comments if you could please Give any direction to staff for what we can bring back on a future agenda to discuss this item. So it may be...

I'd like the council, I'll address the council, to agree to ask the staff to issue a deceased and refrain to the mayor for his specific business to avoid a number of gray areas of potential conflict. Those areas include Use of City of Solvang assets, slogans and brands. The potential for decision making as mayor that would affect ordinances, permits, status of business certificates, whether a business would be treated in favor because they're paying the mayor the $250 per month or difficulty and resistance because they are not paying the mayor $250 a month.

So, the major issues are not only will this conflict be constant in our decision-making as a council But in his role as making key decisions, it will be disruptive for us as a solidly functioning council to have him constantly recuse himself from key decisions.

Council Member Rohn, if I may. I believe you've asked the council whether they would like to direct staff to take an action to issue a cease and disdain to the mayor regarding his business. I would like to clarify that at this meeting because it's not on the agenda there is no action that can be taken at most Council, a majority of which would have to agree could direct staff to bring something back at a future agenda regarding the mayor's application or business.

But they can't take that action tonight because it's not on the agenda. So how do we put it on the agenda? You ask whether there's a majority of the council that would be interested in directing staff to bring something back at a future meeting.

We had that discussion, Chelsea and I asked if we could put it on the agenda and it was made clear that we needed to have consensus.

As we discussed prior, the procedure for adding an item on the agenda by a council member is add a meeting Ask if other council members, you need a majority of the council. You don't need consensus, you need a majority. If a majority of the council would like to direct staff to bring that item back at a future meeting. So that's what you can do tonight. The council cannot take action on your request tonight.

They can only take action to direct staff to bring it back at a future meeting.

I think that's what I'm asking, right? Because we can't form or write a desist and refrain right now. We have to ask staff to go take that action.

And you're saying it needs to be on the agenda. What exactly that is and looks like because staff does not police the private business entities of council members in that way, but we can look into it if directed by the majority of the Council. So I think at this point With Mayor Brown, I would suggest that you do not participate in this particular action. We don't need a formal vote but Mayor Pro Tem if you'd like to ask the rest of the council if they're interested in bringing an item back per Council Member Arona's request?

If this is the appropriate time then I do ask the council if you are interested in bringing this back at a later time.

Yes

No

Yes.

3-1.

I just wanted to say on the, I want to congratulate our Parks and Recreation Department for the new grass that exists. Looks great with regards to, I was at, I don't know if you remember but we had Eagle Scout Leo Bernstein actually it was an eagle project he presented to us on flag etiquette and it came about that one of our Citizens complained that there was a flag that wasn't at half mast and it was shortly around the time where we were remembering President Carter's passing.

And it wasn't because they weren't being patriotic, they just didn't know about what was the proper procedure for when to be at half mast and when not. So anyway, Leo Brownstein presented to our council and the community. And I was at his Equal Court of Honor on Saturday. It was a wonderful event so glad to be at that and congratulate Leo. I was with our city manager and doing a site visit near Riverview Park with Mayor Silva last two weeks ago roughly.

And in, I guess because it's been brought up in reference to the business, It is a new business, it's an embryonic business but there are no city assets that are being used in that. It's a game, a tourist game called Solvang Passport And I can say that there's been no No conflict of interest and no consideration for any of that. So

Consent is for routine administrative city matters and is approved with one motion. These items are discussed only on request of council members. Members of the public were afforded an opportunity to speak during the public communications portion of this agenda.

I would like to pull item E.

Can I make a comment before making a motion to approve everything? But E, I just want to point out that the sheriff data that we received is really dashboard information. It's not the detailed data that we should be getting there having some challenges converting from one system to another. So I don't, I think maybe Randy if you concur, there should be, we should see more detailed data on a regular basis and that is the first sampling

Yeah, this is just what they can retrieve right now. We'll be getting more detailed information in the near future.

I was considering pulling that item but to what benefit? Quite honestly it's in my opinion woefully a report

Their reasoning is that they're converting systems and they don't have the ability to get information out of it. We will be having Travis, our police chief here making a presentation similar to what Garrett Huff did a few weeks ago and he'll be bringing that information. They have a lot more data at that time and we're hopeful by the new fiscal year July 1 we'll have more detailed information on a quarterly basis.

Thank you.

So I'll make a motion to approve consent item 6A, B, C, D, F and G. I'll second it.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve item 6 A, B ,C, D ,F and G roll call please.

Motion passes 5-0

Okay, what's uh... What are your concerns with item E?

All right, so we talked about it. We talked about what kind of short term rentals are allowed in Solvang, how many and why? My concern is regarding homestays Let me see if I can pull it up. So, it says that there's no notification that shall be required for homestay home occupied short term rentals but I don't know if there is maybe a missing it but I'm not seeing anywhere else in the ordinance where homestays are defined or where they are allowed for that matter?

Or if we're silent on them and they're, yeah exactly. If we would not define them then there's no penalty for participating in a homestay or offering one so the inverse is still a question.

Rafael and I were just conferring, and thank you Member Arona for pointing this out. Earlier versions of the ordinance when it was still in development had provisions on homestay, and I think the one mention that you've identified is just a typo line that we meant to delete when we got the direction from you all to not address homestays. So the fix would be to delete that sentence rather than, it's not intended to be you know not defined and regulating it without defining. And I think the intent was to just not provide for homestays separately

Sorry, could you point out where that sentence is what we're referring to? Yes.

It's when I search it it's in subsection M of section scrolling scrolling 11 12 20 and there's no page numbers on the link that I clicked

but... No but it's an M on

6 of 13 I think, yeah page six of if you're looking at that specific link for that ordinance in the hyperlinked agenda.

Yeah, it is the last sentence. And to confirm yes this was supposed to be eliminated out since it was given council direction to not at this point not include homestays and then the last council meeting direction was to revisit the ordinance after a year worth of implementation to discuss potential green lighting of homestays?

Okay, so just to clarify does that mean that you know homestays are allowed in general? That we're not regulating them. What does that mean if they're left

out? They are allowed in the VMU only. So if a homeowner opts to do a homestay that would be allowed but generally speaking what the public comment was and the comment letter is to allow them in other zones outside of the VMU So at this point in time, the way the ordinance is written is they would be allowed in the VMU only as we make no differential between a owner occupied slash homestay or a non-owner occupied slash second home.

And okay, and my question is that clear in the code because it's

I think other than this one errant reference to homestay It's a homestate is a type of short-term rental. And so we're just not regulating them differently

Okay So short term rentals home stays is the same thing for our

yes in earlier versions of the ordinance We had proposed potential different regulations for home stays because you know they Other jurisdictions sometimes regulate them differently because the host is on site, but given the direction that we got from council, we moved to just regulating them as just like any other short-term rental. So any place, like the VMU where short-term rentals are allowed you could have a homestay as a short-term rental they're just not differentiated under the code at this point other than that one sentence we missed

Okay so that answers my question.

But if we revisit the logic and some of the thinking, I mean I would be open to revisiting this maybe sooner than a year out because and I know it means more work if we don't pass something tonight for you Raphael but the logic as I recall was we were conscious of I wanted to make sure that we were talking about short-term vacation rentals in neighborhoods which disrupted the expected way of life in these neighborhoods or expectation out of a neighborhood, which maybe wouldn't necessarily have the same impact with a homestay.

And the other logic was Feels like that doesn't apply here if we were to consider homestays outside of the VMU.

The easier thing to do is and while we can bring it sooner, is to implement the program first let's get the online permitting portal open for direction that's been given at about six months maybe the mark to bring that back with a couple options that the council can weigh in on in regards to homestays

I'm open to that. I just worry that six months, you know if someone's got a homestay and that's how they're keeping Augmenting their income in a time when you know affordability is really tough Six months might be too far out

Understandable. The other alternative, as mentioned to the speaker earlier is that the city does not regulate stays over 30 days so they most certainly can advertise for stays on Airbnb or Furnished Finder or there are other sites that accommodate stays greater than 30 days this ordinance doesn't affect that. They're able to utilize those sites as well

Is that something you can put on a calendar for six month period for us to revisit?

We can.

Let's do that.

And if we, depending on workload, if we can bring it sooner, we most certainly can. Again the biggest issue is just getting the implementation part and working with our software vendor to get the application online up and running in the TOT collection up and running and then bring the homestays back to the council.

So can I say will be so busy with that? We aren't really going to be over onerous on regulating

No, not at all.

Participation?

No. There are two facets to the software system. The current one that we have now does these sort of it doesn't do the sort of it does the regulation aspect of it. We have to green light the other portion which is the portal and a tax collection.

I think it makes sense to implement a program to regulate this before you know saying that we're gonna allow something and then backtracking Yeah, in the meantime I guess pursuing...

Sounds like we're in agreement to bring it back. It's just a function of when.

And if you're going to make a motion for second reading and adoption of this ordinance tonight, it would be with the amendment to delete the last sentence of section 11-1220M

Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

Okay well that I will make a motion to approve ordinance number 26-0390 with the corrections noted.

I'll second

it. It's been properly moved and seconded for the approval as modified item 6E. Roll call please

We have no public hearings, so we'll

go

straight to item 8A. If you would read that into the record please? Introduce for first reading ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 1 flood plan management of Title 13, Flood Control of the Solvang Municipal Code to comply with National Flood Insurance Program NFIP requirements.

Thank you. Staff report please?

I thought Bridget might be coming up. So this item is excuse me, let me pull up the report on that apologies. I was ready for the next one. So, the City of Solvang participates in the National Flood Insurance Program and that is a federal program put on by the Federal Emergency Management Agency which we all know as FEMA. And FEMA issues flood insurance rate maps and they recently issued new ones for Santa Barbara County. They kind of on a rolling basis I forget the exact frequency but they update them on a somewhat regular basis and at that point We have to make some updates to follow the new maps. And then the state agency also identified several amendments that we needed to make too, which is the California Department of Water Resources notified us that we needed to make several amendments to our flood control ordinance to be consistent with state law.

And so all this ordinance is doing is making those technical updates to our flood control regulations. And those are described in the staff report in more detail, but a lot of it is updating references to FEMA's technical tools that they use or updating definitions to be consistent with the federal regulations. Again, this is all things that we need to do to maintain our participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. And if we don't do that then that could have consequences for property owners in our flood hazard areas because we need to be in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program in order to get the, you know be eligible for federal grants and loans. And you know there's several consequences listed in the staff report there so it is important that we follow through with the recommended updates that the state has suggested and I'm happy to take any questions on the ordinance.

We did provide a red line because it looks like a lot but when you look at the red line version you can see it's really kind of small edits

Appreciate that you shared the red line so much easier. Did I miss something or was there supposed to be a map or some images of what was updated findings?

The map update is handled separately by FEMA. We are not actually updating a local map, we just need to refer to the correct FEMA map in our regulations so there's like the cross reference is updated but we're not adopting a specific map. or approving a map tonight.

So

this

is not in reference that anything's changed with those maps?

Just the language? FEMA did go through the process of updating the maps and they're going to be, they came out last year, they're going to be effective as of June this year I believe. And so we need to have our regulations ready by that time so when the new maps go into effect were gonna be reconciled with those new maps But the last year when we were discussing updated flood maps, that's all the same map that we're talking about right now.

Thank you.

It's a good question.

Okay any other questions? Okay I'm gonna open it up to public comment. Is there anybody...I have no slips presently. Anybody that wishes to add to this conversation? Anybody on Zoom? Okay, we will then close it to public comment. Seeing none and bring it back to the dais for conclusion. Is there a motion from anyone?

I'll make a note. I'll make a motion to introduce for first reading ordinance of chapter 1 of title 3 of the Solvang Municipal Code to comply with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. I'll second

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded for the approval of Item 8A. Roll call, please.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you Okay

Introduce for first reading ordinance number 260392 amending sections 8-3-1, 8- 3-2, 8 – 3-3, 8 – 3-5, 8 – 3-6 and 8 –3-8 of title eight public ways and property chapter three street and sidewalk obstructions of the Solvang municipal code. To regulate queuing in the public right of way and upgrade, strengthen the city's commercial solicitation regulations and make other clarifying edits.

Thank you. Staff report please.

Thank you, Mayor. And first I'd like to apologize to Anne-Marie for making her read all those sections. This ordinance grew over time as we started working with the Chapter 8-3 and so we added more edits along the way and in retrospect should have consolidated that title for you. So this ordinance is coming before you as kind of the next installment of the City's efforts Increase our ability to enforce our code and create some stronger tools to regulate our public right-of-ways.

And there's two main themes here, one is to add some language to more directly regulate lining up or queuing in the public right of way we have businesses in town where quite popular line gets long ends up blocking the sidewalk blocking the door do another business So the language proposed here would give code enforcement a way to work with that, with those businesses to you know either give them an appropriate encroachment permit so that whatever line can be in the public right-of-way in a way that does not block access for pedestrians ADA access or other businesses ingress and egress out of other buildings, and also it prohibits blocking the right-of-way in that way. So that gives code enforcement a little stronger tools to help make sure that we maintain our public rights of way and sidewalks to be accessible for everyone while still basically managing and organizing queuing out in this in this in the public right-of way.

And then the second bucket is to address aggressive solicitation in the public right-of-way. You know, we want certainly our public spaces to be open and available for people to express themselves but at the same time You know, commercial activity and in a way that is accosting pedestrians going by is not something that the city wants to foster. So this these amendments give the city a stronger basis to monitor and regulate solicitation, commercial activities on the public right-of-way in a way that still maintains adequate space for free speech. So happy to and then along the way we caught some cleanup cross references and such in this chapter so as part of our ongoing efforts to modernize and clean up the code we caught a few of those as well.

So I'm happy to take any questions that you have Why are we considering both of these in the same action? Because they are addressed, they're in the same part of the code. So it kind of made sense... It's all chapter 8-3 of the code and it's all relating to activities on our public rights-of-way so to us it made sense to bring them even though they're kind of motivated maybe by somewhat different ideas Since it's in the same chapter of the code, we thought it made sense to holistically edit instead of take one section here and one section there.

It just seems like separated circumstances are significantly different for the actions and the solutions.

Yes, and we had kind of drafted them separately but we realized they were making changes to the same sections of the code and so that's why we brought them together.

And one of my questions is, how frequent is the queue issue with lines? I

defer that to City Manager Randy.

I've been here almost three years and I've had at least half a dozen complaints, actual formal type email complaints. There have been numerous comments about the queuing in particular on the weekends and things like that when there's a lot of people and concern raised about individuals having to step into the traveled way, the road so there are some concerns about that.

Along those lines, how fast, what's the turnaround expectation if someone were to request city approval for review of the right-of-way and how it gets used for queuing in lines? I can see a scenario where seasonally one business is surprised by, you know the crush they realize and if they didn't already anticipate with the city and receive their permit how would we anticipate they would make that request in an urgent situation?

Well we don't have anybody to process the permits in the room right now but typically they are pretty quick within a couple of weeks.

So we, or would we advise businesses if they think that would ever become an issue through a year's window of time that they should request that status?

Yeah I mean it's certainly advisable to be proactive.

And um I had a question just maybe these are some of the conflicts that you already caught Chelsea on section 8E There's a way it's written. It says that a bicycle, scooter or something human propelled scooter and bicycles cannot be on the sidewalk or public street so where would a bicycle go? I think we want bicycles in Solvang but if we prohibit them from the sidewalk and the public street, I think that is too limiting.

Section

8E. Sorry

so it's section 8-3 something and then a letter?

I'm sorry well maybe... I'm in the ordinance Chelsea or the packet I should say On page 6, section 8 letter E. That single

paragraph.

So that is actually existing code language and all we're doing in that section is changing the It currently says Central Business District and that's defined, and we're just changing it to Village Mixed Use.

Understood

So we didn't change the rest of that

But I think we need to rethink this. It's too limiting That suggests we can't have a bicycle anywhere in the VMU. I mean well where else would they ride? Mm-hmm.

I think we just need to delete or a public street right

I just revisit that language because...

I think, so this is a grammatical conundrum maybe but I think it's supposed to be right. A bicycle up on a sidewalk or skateboards aren't allowed on sidewalks or public streets. That's how I read that. So if that's what the council is comfortable with, but we could clarify it.

Yeah I'll also note that he doesn't mention rollerblades or rollerskates. I'm happy about that.

Roller skater in the house yep. But certainly I see how you're reading it Madam Council Member Arona so not opposed to adjusting that. Frankly, the only reason why this part's in here is because we were just trying to get the VMU consistent throughout the code.

So we would allow bicycles on a public street?

That's how I'm reading this. My guess is that's how it was supposed to be read, is that you can't ride a bicycle on the sidewalk and you can't do a skateboard or a human-propelled scooter on a sidewalk or a public street. Well, we need some comma or