Parks, Recreation Code Amendments

I believe this is day 31, so just testing whether you can still submit comments.

As a usual walker in the Garden Canyon Linear Park and an occasional biker, I support the idea of a 10 mph speed limit on all of this park's trails for any sort of bike, scooters, etc. This is a safe speed to share the trails for considerate bike/scooter riders. They should have no/little issue with this speed limit given the relatively short distance of the park trails involved when there are so many lengthy trails and bike paths available to them. Given the type of trails between Cherokee ans US 92, I only go around 10-mph on my bike and most of the bikers I encounter while walking there are going about the same speed. The trails between Cherokee and the Ft Huachuca fence are more open and I bike a little faster here; however, I can easily slow to 10-mph for this short distance, then go faster if I wish on the trail inside the old Ft Huachuca fence and then on the Garden Canyon trails. I am confident that even most of the self-described "adrenaline junkie" mountain bikers would be willing to do the same.

I am a Sierra Vista resident and have used the City’s multiuse paths and the Garden Canyon Linear Park for exercise and recreation. The City’s outdoor recreation opportunities are a big draw for both residents and visitors alike, and our trails and multiuse paths are a big part of that. I am very concerned that the Parks and Recreation Commission has proposed a code amendment without adequate public involvement and consideration of the impact on the City’s residents, visitors, and bike friendly reputation.

My reasons are as follows:

1. Regarding class 3 electric bicycles, the text of ARS 28-819 states in paragraph E: “A class 3 electric bicycle may not be operated on a bicycle or multiuse path unless it is within or adjacent to a highway or roadway or unless the local authority or agency of this state having jurisdiction over the path allows the operation.” As I read this, it does not ban outright the use of class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle or multiuse path that is within or adjacent to a highway or roadway as is the case for most of the City’s multiuse paths. It also gives the City the flexibility to allow the operation of class 3 electric bicycles even if the bicycle or multiuse path is not within or adjacent to a highway or roadway. So, my point is the Commission is not required by State law to ban outright the operation of class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle or multiuse path within the City. Furthermore, the Commission has created much confusion over this proposal by not defining what is a “park trail”. Does this term include the City’s multiuse paths or just trails like the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail? There is a big difference here and the public needs a precise definition in order to understand the impact. Other City interests and departments may have some jurisdiction and involvement in this as well.

2. I believe the best course of action is for the Commission to withdraw the proposed code amendment and start anew with a more robust public involvement process to gather input from City residents and interested members of the public on their views of how the City’s trails and multiuse paths should be managed for diverse users. A public meeting with maps and displays would be very helpful to clarify which trails are of concern to the Commission and subject to a proposed ban on class 3 electric bicycles. The public should have the opportunity to offer various options such as allowing trail use by class 3 electric bicycles under certain conditions. Perhaps they could be used on City trails subject to a designated speed limit, such as 10 mph along with trail etiquette signing. Or perhaps class 3 electric bicycles could be used only on designated times or days of the week for certain trails in order to avoid possible conflicts. My concern is that trail use is a bigger issue than this proposed code amendment and the City should not ban certain bicycles from trails without a thorough public involvement process and consideration of the impact on the City’s residents, visitors, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Indeed, the City’s web site and marketing efforts tout the bike friendly environment here. Let’s keep it that way.

Hi, I hike on trails in and around Sierra Vista several times a week. I've never had any problems with bikers, e-bikes or horse riders while hiking in this area. So, I don't think any bikes, e-bikes, horses, etc. should be banned. However, a speed limit of 10mph and signs emphasizing safety and right away should be put in place. Reminding folks of safety and rights of way should go a long way to help prevent issues.

I walk Garden Canyon linear park, and have, from time to time, encountered bicyclists. They generally follow the normal "trail yield" courtesy standards--as we all should. For those not familiar with the trail yield triangle, it goes like this: bicyclists yield to pedestrians, and both pedestrians and bicyclists yield to equestrians (do a web search for a visual). It sounds like proponents are seeking an unenforceable regulation. The police department will not be able to monitor bicycle traffic and hand out speeding tickets. I'd like to suggest that the City install some trail yield courtesy signs to remind people that they are not the only trail users and courtesy is expected. Will everyone yield? Nope. If a speed limit is mandated, will speedsters slow down? Nope. (As a side note, I've lived in big cities and small towns. I am grateful to live somewhere where the greatest controversy is how fast someone is traveling on a short trail, a trail that we are blessed to have in our wonderful city!)

I walk the Garden Canyon Linear Park trails on a frequent basis. I support a 10 mile per hour speed limit for all two-wheeled vehicles as someone proposed, because this will make the trails much safer for all the trail users. There are places on the trails where you cannot see far ahead and sometimes you cannot hear bicyclists coming up behind you, which makes it unsafe for someone walking and the bicyclist. Most bicyclists I encounter are in between Cherokee Avenue and the Ft Huachuca boundary. This is a short distance for a bicyclist and then they can go whatever speed they want on the miles of Brown Canyon trails. This short distance needs to be safe for everyone.

Since a C Wright has submitted multiple comments and mentioned me and some of the information I provided in at least two of his comments. I would like to provide some additional information that should prove helpful to him and others that read these comments. First of all, I am not part of any “hiking based Special Interest Group….” I discovered quite by chance that the Parks and Recreation Commission was already discussing the topic of eBikes on Garden Canyon Linear Park trails, and I decided to go because the web link used as a reference was misleading and I had an alternative proposal. After some quick phone calls to Coronado National Forest (CNF), Coronado National Monument (CNM), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) representatives, I found out that eBikes were not allowed on any CNF Sierra Vista Ranger District or BLM trails and only on one short stretch of a CNM trail, so I shared that information with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Eventually the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation was changed to its current proposal of not allowing class 3 eBikes and scooters on park trails, which was never a suggestion that I made to the Parks and Recreation Commission. As for comments that appear to be the same or similar, I have told friends about my concerns and asked them to comment as they wish – some have chosen to use my words. BTW Parks and Recreation Commission members never told me how or why this eBike issue was raised with them. As for Sierra Vista Public Information Officer Adam Curtis uploading my comments for me, he did it because I was having problems submitting my comments through the website. If anyone else has problems with the website, contact Adam and I am sure he will help. I did not have the same problem this time.

I am glad that C Wright was willing to state “I will assume that the majority of the interaction that is of concern is on the section of the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail that goes from Cherokee to the Brown Canyon Ranch House.” Unfortunately, his assumption is wrong. The Garden Canyon Linear Park trail section that goes from Cherokee to the Fort Huachuca boundary is only roughly one-third of the entire Garden Canyon Linear Park trail, which actually goes through the Garden Canyon Wash from roughly Highway 92 to the Fort Huachuca boundary. The third of the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail C Wright talked about is in more open terrain than the other two-thirds of the trail which is generally narrower, has a least one blind curve, and has multiple areas where vegetation encroachment does not allow one to get off the trail to allow a bicyclist to pass. Consequently, the majority of the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail is not in as safe of terrain as the one-third C Wright discussed and therefore overall public safety of all trail users for the entire trail should require a slower speed, such as 10 miles per hour (mph).

The Strava bike speed information C Wright provided was very interesting, as it gives us some idea of how fast bicyclists travel. Just because more that 77 percent are going above 10 mph for the one-third of the trail C Wright discussed, does not mean that 10 mph wouldn’t be an acceptable, safe speed limit for the entire trail for all trail users. The bicyclists C Wright described just have to slow down for a short distance and can then go faster if they choose while going up Brown Canyon.

As for the enforcement issue, I mentioned in my comments that “enforcing” a speed limit is a much better alternative than enforcing a class 3 eBike restriction – really the best of two not so great alternatives. I also mentioned that having a 10-mph speed limit for all two-wheeled modes of transportation would hopefully be seen as a goal for all responsible trail users to slow down and respect the trail usage rights of others. I have never suggested that I expected the Sierra Vista Police to enforce a 10-mph speed limit by whatever means.

C Wright also had some concerns about my school crossing zone analogy. I agree that that “1) the speed limit is in effect only when school is in session, 2) the speed limit is for a short section for motor vehicles (which come with speedometers).” The problem with Garden Canyon Linear Park trails is that you never know when you might unexpectedly encounter someone or an animal on the trail; so consequently, to be safe, school always has to be in session with a 10-mph speed limit in this case. As I mentioned earlier the section of the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail from Cherokee to the Fort Huachuca boundary is very short when compared with the entire trail system from Cherokee through Brown Canyon, so slowing down for safety’s sate for a short section, just like a school crossing zone, should not be that much of an inconvenience for responsible bicyclists. As for point three where “adults [do not] need an adult to supervise them in their activities,” I would like to point out that children do use the trail; but more importantly, we all need reminders about good public safety practices. That is what a speed limit sign is all about, so why not use one for everyone using trails, just like we do on streets and highways?

Finally, C Wright listed some questions about how I arrived at the braking distances for bicycles. The main point I was trying to make without getting into too much detail was that bicycles do not stop on a dime, so a 10-mph speed limit was a prudent public safety option given the overall Garden Canyon Linear Park trail environment. I primarily used https://www.muggaccinos.com/Liability/BrakeCalcs/Braking_formula/TwoDistanceToBrakeToStopFormulae.htm to determine the bike stopping distance on a level roadway. I was also provided this web link by a mountain biker friend - https://electricbikereport.com/aventon-soltera-review/ -, which has a video showing how long the braking distance was for a Soltera brand bike – remember stopping distance is comprised of the reaction distance (I used 2.5 seconds, as that is an accepted reaction time.) and the stopping distance. As I mentioned, I was just trying to point out bikes do not stop on a dime.

I hike the trails regularly and I agree with the proposal to limit ebikes to class 1&2.

I think a 10 MPH speed limit for a wheeled devices would be a good idea. Older folks don’t move as fast and it is hard for them to get out of the way of a fast moving device!

I walk on the Garden Canyon Linear Park trails. There are well established 15-mph speed limits for school crossing zones. Garden Canyon Linear Park trails are less safe than school crossing zones because the trails have blind curves; are very narrow, so where there is vegetation encroachment/trees you cannot get out of the way; bikers coming up from behind cannot be heard by people walking or on horseback, birders, or other bikers, especially if they are distracted or cannot hear (e.g., using ear buds). In addition, eBikes and bikes in general do not stop on a dime. One estimate of a bike’s stopping distances is 18 yards at 15-mph and 11 yards at 10-mph. Consequently, a 10-mph speed limit for any two-wheeled form of transportation is a much safer speed for this trail environment.

When it comes to enforcement of any guidance, one class of eBike cannot be easily distinguished from another, and although a 10-mph speed limit for any two-wheeled form of transportation has enforcement issues, too, it is a much better alternative than trying to distinguish an eBike’s class. There are other cities where a 10-mph speed limit has been successfully accepted and followed by the public, so why not in Sierra Vista.

The term “park trail” needs to be defined in Chapter 94.01 of the City Ordinance. Besides the official Garden Canyon Linear Park Trail there are many social trails used by people in Garden Canyon Linear Park which should be covered by this guidance. Defining a trail would ensure the public knew that all trails were covered by the Chapter 94.04 (I) addition. It would also make clear that a trail was not a multiuse path, as multiuse paths go through several of the other city parks. There is no park trail or trail definition in the AZ Revised Statutes that I could find. The following is a suggested trail definition: “A trail is an unpaved, narrow path.”

This comment is being submitted on behalf of Steven Scheumann

Sierra Vista City Mayor, City Council Members and Fellow Citizens,

I, Steven Scheumann, would like to submit the following comments/recommendations to the Sierra Vista City Mayor and City Council for their consideration and action concerning the Park and Recreation Commission’s recommended edits and additions to Chapters 94 and 96 of the City Ordinance with the goal of better serving the public.

My major concerns have to do with the Chapter 94.04 (I) addition which states “(I) In accordance with Arizona State Law, it shall be unlawful to operate class 3 electrical bicycles and/or scooters within the confines of any park trail.” I recommend this be changed to “(I) In order to further refine state law, the speed limit for any two-wheeled form of transportation moving on city park trails will be limited to 10 miles per hour.” This change does not contradict AZ Revised Statue 28-819 and just refines the city’s guidance on this topic. The two major reasons supporting this change are:

Enhanced access, as now all classes of electrical bicycles (eBikes) and/or scooters can access park trails, and

Enhanced public safety, as the maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) for these electrically powered and other types of conveyances would be lowered to a much safer 10 mph for current and future modes of two-wheeled transportation.

I am the President of a local hiking club and walk the Garden Canyon Linear Park Trail, which is the major trail impacted by this guidance, multiple times weekly on average. I have discussed this topic and shared ideas with my fellow club members, some of whom have eBikes; other hiking or biking groups; local bicycle shop representatives; and participated in multiple Parks and Recreation Commission meetings. Although we all appreciate the Park and Recreation Commission being proactive on this topic, I believe most of the people I have spoken to respectfully disagree with the current proposal for some of the reasons in this submission and perhaps other reasons.

I would like to provide more support for why my proposed change to the city ordinance enhances access to park trails and will better serve public safety. AZ Revised Statue 28-819 only mentions “bicycle and multiuse paths,” so there is no specific state guidance for park trails in this specific statue or in any other AZ Revised Statue that I could find. I also know, based upon what has happened on the Coronado National Forest’s (CNF) Brown Canyon Trail and other CNF trails, that some hikers no longer hike on these trails because of the hazardous conditions caused by some mountain biker’s excessive speed coming down canyon trails. Consequently, a safer speed limit would encourage more of the public to use park trails. Finally, when it comes to enforcement of this guidance, one class of eBike cannot be easily distinguished from another (no eBike class marking potentially if ordered online or very small marking – I saw about an inch square markings on eBikes’s in a local bicycle store that you could only read up close.), and although speed enforcement has issues, too, it is a much better alternative than trying to distinguish an eBike’s class. Why should a popular class of eBikes be restricted from park trails and some citizens avoid the park trails because of some eBikes or scooters going 20 mph, when there is a viable alternative that will enhance access to park trails?

I would now like to provide more support for why my proposed change enhances public safety, as the maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) for these electrically powered conveyances should be lowered to a much safer 10 mph as well as for all other current and future modes of two-wheeled transportation. No one that I have talked to supports as essentially a 20-mph speed limit on park trails as being safe – 20-mph is the assisted speed limit of class 1 and 2 eBikes. I therefore will first address why a 10-mph speed limit versus a 15-mph speed limit would be best for public safety in a park trail environment. There are well established 15-mph speed limits for school crossing zones. Since the street environment has changed, the speed limit is lowered for public safety reasons. The school crossing zone environment can be described as:

Children and adults stop and look both ways before crossing,

Pedestrians, vehicle drivers and bicyclists have a clear view of everything, and

Pedestrians, vehicle drivers and bicyclists have some room to maneuver.

Compare this with the primary trail environment this guidance applies to, the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail environment, which can be described as:

Trail users to include the walking public (cannot see and might not hear bicyclist coming up from behind, especially if they are wearing ear buds), unleashed dogs (should be leashed, but many are not), birders (stopped on the trail using their binoculars, so do not see or possibly hear bicyclist), horseback riders (bikes can scare horses and make them bolt), and bicyclists and scooter riders (concentrating on the trail tread just ahead of them and not looking far forward; cannot see or possibly hear something coming up from behind, especially if wearing air buds);

The trail has blind curves (cannot see very far ahead and biker’s voice/bell muffled); and

The trail is narrow (the dirt or rocky dirt tread is 1-2 foot wide) with areas of trees on both sides and vegetation encroachment where you cannot get off the trail to let someone, a horse, or a bicyclist pass.

Based upon this comparison of a school crossing zone and the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail environment, you can easily see that the Garden Canyon Linear Park trail is not as safe and should have a lower speed limit than a school crossing zone’s 15-mph speed limit. Thus, the recommendation of a 10-mph speed limit on all park trails.

In addition, there are other facts that support a 10-mph speed limit on all park trails:

There are other cities where a 10-mph speed limit has been successfully accepted and followed by the public. My brother’s town of Wenatchee, Washington is such a town – see attached Wenatchee WA Loop Trail (Note top bullet in Rues of the Road box). It is a small town like Sierra Vista in many ways.

An estimate of bike stopping distances is 18 yards at 15-mph and 11 yards at 10-mph (These estimates include the actual braking distance on a hard, flat surface, so a dirt trail would be longer; and a 2.5 second reaction time, which is a standard reaction time for drivers – why would bicyclists be much different.). The slower speed would be much safer around blind curves and vegetation encroachments, and trail walkers, bicyclists, etc. would be more likely to see or hear a bike coming or the warnings of a bicyclist (A bicyclist could give a verbal or bell warning closer to whomever they are approaching.).

The vast majority of Garden Canyon Linear Park trail users are citizens walking, so their safety is more in the public interest than bicycle riders going a little faster for a short distance. The safety of the vast majority of trail uses should be a deciding factor and not the number of people that submit comments ignoring this fact.

The Garden Canyon Linear Park trail is relatively short (each of the three sections are a long block in length) compared to the lengthy streets, bike lanes in streets, and multiuse paths that are available to bicyclists. Consequently, bicyclists should not mind this short 10-mph speed limit area, while other types of trail users would be more likely to use the trail as they felt safer.

Per a local bicycle shop owner, speedometers are generally optional on eBikes. Whether an eBike has a speedometer or not, people have a tendency to go over the speed limit. Therefore, a 10-mph speed limit is much more likely to cause bicyclists to go slower than a 20-mph and hopefully slower than 15-mph. Whereas, a 15-mph speed limit is much more likely to result in bicyclists actually going 20-mph or more.

Per the bicycle shop representative, I spoke to, many of the eBike purchasers were older people that want to be able to continue to enjoy riding a bike. I have friends like that and they do not object to slower speeds on trails. By the way this also applies to my older mountain biking friends that say they normally go 10-12 mph at the most on flat trails, so a 10-mph speed limit would not be an inconvenience.

Raising a speed limit is a much more easily accepted action by the public, than lowering it. Depending upon how the condition and use of park trails evolve, the park trail speed limit might be safe enough to raise to 15-mph from the initial 10-mph. That would be much easier for the public to accept and comply with than if the park trail speed limit had to be lowered from 15-mph to 10-mph because of park trail safety issues involving the 15-mph speed limit.

Besides my recommended change to the Chapter 94.04 (I) addition, the following concern with the Park and Recreation Commission’s recommended edits and additions to Chapters 94 and 96 of the City Ordinance has been raised with me and disserves your consideration and action:

The term “park trail” needs to be defined in Chapter 94.01 of the City Ordinance. Besides the official Garden Canyon Linear Park Trail there are many social trails used by people in Garden Canyon Linear Park which should be covered by this guidance. Defining a trail would ensure the public knew that all trails were covered by the Chapter 94.04 (I) addition. It would also make clear that a trail was not a multiuse path, as multiuse paths go through several of the other city parks. There is no park trail or trail definition in the AZ Revised Statutes that I could find. The following is a suggested trail definition: “A trail is an unpaved, narrow path.”

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on and recommend enhancements to the proposed Park and Recreation Commission’s recommended edits and additions to Chapters 94 and 96 of the City Ordinance. I am confident that they will enhance the goal of better serving public access and public safety.

Sincerely,

Steven Scheumann

Attachment
Wenatchee WA Loop Trail
NOTE: The attachment could not be submitted via the comment webpage, but it will be included in the official comment record since these comments were also emailed to the City Clerk. You can also get a copy of the trail map by going to https://www.chelanpud.org/parks-and-recreation/our-parks/apple-capital-loop-trail then clicking on “Trail Map” in the left column of the webpage. A .pdf copy of the trail map will be downloaded to your computer.

The banning of Ebikes on shared use paths it’s just plain wrong and should not be done. I myself am both a pedestrian and a cyclist not by choice but out of necessity and I have no problem with the bikes being driven on the multiuse path. if anything then require a person on an E bike to have a bell or some other device to warn a pedestrian they are coming but restriction is not the answer! For working class people like myself along with others less fortunate in this city, cycling is now the only form of transportation available to us! we can’t afford cars or pricey shuttles and with the numerous budget cuts that have been made to the city transit system we are slowly being deprived of our way to get around town to make a living, go to doctors appointments etc. and this restriction is only going to make things worse. Then there are those that say the person on the bike can ride in the lane alongside traffic the answer to that is a resounding NO! With the way people drive around here I myself do not feel comfortable riding in this city’s sorry excuses for bike lanes. Would you ask a child/teenager to ride their E scooter in the bike lane along with cars whipping down Fry Boulevard going more than 35 miles an hour or down Buffalo soldier Trail going more than the posted 65 mph or a person driving a hover round?the answer is NO!
The only good part of this referendum is the fact that they are lifting the restriction from 15 mph which is how it should have been to begin with because according to STATE LAW the E bike IS ALLOWED to go up to at least 20 mph. To me this is another example of the city ignoring real issues and choosing to go with the popular cocensus and cater to only certain people.
in short if the council Really cares about ALL The citizens of the city then they will stop trying to pass useless restrictions like this one and actually start helping people.

If you do decide to mirror existing state law, you don't need to change anything in the city code. However, regardless of what the council decides, the city should add signs informing users of the limitation.

I am a daily user of the MUPs, as a walker and a prolific bicyclist. I fully support adding a speed limit in addition to existing State code prohibiting Class 3 E-bikes is reasonable. 15 MPH is still pretty fast and not an unreasonable speed limit. Faster riders always have the option to ride in the bike lane adjacent to car traffic, as I do. That said, if safety and compliance is desired, either proposal requires new signage all over town, a significant expense.
The argument that a speed limit is not enforceable is invalid. Enforcement does not necessarily require the threat of a citation. When a police officer observes a rider at an unsafe speed on the MUP, the officer has cause to stop the rider, even if only to give a verbal warning. As a prolific rider, I can tell you, forcing a cyclist to stop, just once, will have a substantial impact on behavior. In the end, a speed limit is a subtle nudge for riders to ride at a reasonable speed and most will comply.
The argument that the Class 3 e-bike ban discriminates against disabled riders also falls flat. Most e-bikes are class 1 and 2 anyway, while Class 3 riders have the option to ride in the roadside bike lane. Or…Perhaps the ordinance could include an exception for disabled riders. Regardless, enforcement of this type of rule is typically in response to unsafe activity (speeding, zig-zagging around pedestrian etc), so ride safely regardless of ability or disability.

I am a very frequent user of city multiuse trails. I prefer the 15 mph speed limit remain in force and also agree that Class 3 ebikes not be allowed on them.

Thank you.

I believe the benefits of e-bikes, scooters, e-boards out weigh the negatives for health both physical and mental. I believe our community is one that stands for mental health due to his high veteran and retired population.
https://www.alzinfo.org/articles/prevention/even-a-little-exercise-may-help-stave-off-dementia/

First of all, your sign up process is was too complicated to solicit feedback. Design to make people just give up.

Keep the fast scooter speeds. Typical,Sierra vista move. Add another rule. I think we elected a new regime to stop this nonsense

I agree that lifting the 15 mph speed limit is a reasonable request, as I regularly ride my Onewheel in the vicinity of that speed and am regularly passed by standard bicycles, let alone e-bikes.

I have questions and concerns about the restrictions and limitations for the Class 3 PEVs (for this case, I'm lumping in Electric Unicycles, e-bikes, and stand-up scooters with > 750-watt motors and 30+mph top speeds). Does the term "park trails" include the Cochise Vista Trail and adjacent loops, or just the trails in and through the city parks, such as Veteran's Park, Thompkins, and other smaller parks?

If it includes the Cochise Vista Trail and adjacent loops, I have a question as to where the city plans to route the traffic for those vehicles. Plot a course from the Mall at Sierra Vista to 143 Street Tacos which does not include a multi-use path, and must include a road with an attached bike path. (plot twist, this is impossible to do even including multi-use paths). By the AZ Statute, they can ride west from the mall until the path ends at Coronado, where they will have to cross the street and ride on the road from Coronado to BST. Once on BST, they can get back on the multi-use path until Golf Links, then continue down BST, on the road, until Wilcox, then down Wilcox to S. Carmichael. The shoulder from Golf Links to Wilcox/Fry is terrible for riding. It's narrower than regular bike lanes and rather beaten up, forcing the rider to swerve into (or close to) the right lane in several places.

Just because some of these PEVs can reach motorized vehicle speeds does not mean that most of the riders can do so safely. Also, I submit there is no safe way for a bike rider to navigate the length of Fry Blvd or Wilcox Ave. Those streets are dangerous when motorists encounter cyclists, even when the cyclists are doing close to the speed limit (25+). Unfortunately, I have personal experience with this, as I used to ride my bike to and from work until I was struck by a car while I was legally on the road at the extreme edge of the shoulder (before the multi-use paths existed).

What this limitation for the Class 3 vehicles will do is force them to ride on sidewalks, where those exist, as the roads are too dangerous to ride on, as they are today. In my opinion, this will cause more issues than simply allowing the vehicles to ride on multi-use paths in and around the city. Just because these vehicles can go faster than 26 mph doesn't mean the operators are willing to take them to those limits on the paths. I regularly ride with EUC owners that have vehicles that can go over 45 mph but are terrified of the prospect of going over 20 mph, especially considering the root incursions (bumps caused by tree roots) that will send a rider flying if they hit it at higher speeds. My Onewheel GT has a listed top speed of 26 mph but checking my lifetime top speed it is 20.1 mph. That speed was attained while I was riding in California, and frankly, it scared the heck out of me going that fast.

I commented yesterday but have some more additional inputs. Today, I checked my speed on my bicycle and, just coasting, got up to 16.4 mph on Pawnee and 19.0 mph on the Ramsey Canyon downhill. So if there was a 15 mph limit, I would have to brake while on Pawnee. (The stretch of Ramsey Canyon that I ride has no multi-use path.)
Also, the path already says no motor vehicles so, technically, a bike with a motor is already prohibited from using the path.
Finally, I am not sure how you would enforce a speed limit, have policemen with radar guns? Would a radar gun get a return from a cyclist? And if the code is unenforceable, then folks would start to simply ignore it and I doubt that you want to create a situation where people start to ignore laws.

what problem is this new ordinance trying to solve? I use the MUP in Sierra Vista all the time and have for many years and I've not seen any issues related to eBikes that would give rise to making a new ordinance that restricts their use. Making new laws needlessly is overreaching and a waste. They say this new ordinance is to replace the previous ordinance that limits speed to 15 mph. As an owner of several mountain bikes, road bikes, and a Class 2 e cargo bike that I use to haul groceries and transport my kid around town (on the MUPs), I can assure you my road bike, and in many cases my MTB's, can go a lot faster than 15 mph and a lot faster than my eBike. The benefit of an eBike is that I can haul groceries and my kid around town in a convenient manner. I would like to hear from whoever the person was that thinks this new ordinance is necessary. Making new laws just for the sake of making new laws is some California malarky.