Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-08; Microbility Update; Chadwick, ScottTo the m~mbers of the: CITY COUNCIL · DC.Vl ✓ CA ✓ cc Date 4\i~ CM V coo ./ April 8, 2019 Council Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Re: Micromobility Update · {city of Carlsbad This memorandum provides an update to the memorandum regarding micromobility dated Jan. 30, 2019 (see attachment). Background Micromobility is a relatively recent term that refers to short (micro) trips (mobility), usually a~er using mass transit modes of travel. Previously, these trips were commonly provided via taxis, then shared-mobility providers such as Uber or Lyft. As shared-mobility options became more prevalent through smart-phone apps, less expensive options such as bikeshare and even scooter-share have become popular. The convenience and popularity of these new transportation modes bring issues that are new to most cities, such as where bikeshare and scooter-share vendors can legally operate and dealing with abandoned devices. As cities in the regio_n began to encounter these challenges the San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) established the Regional Micromobility Coordination effort. As summarized in the attachment; SAN DAG has been working with the cities of Encinitas, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Carlsbad and Oceanside, as well as with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and North County Transit District (NCTD), around the possibility of piloting a bikeshare program in the north county coastal region. As a result of these efforts, a Request for Information (RFI) was issued to identify bikeshare vendors with the interest and resources to pilot a bikeshare program. Upon a review and evaluation of the submittals, Gotcha was selected as the preferred vendor. Discussion As described in the attachment, the next steps for the City of Carlsbad included two items. The first item was to present a micromobility ordinance restricting and regulating operation of shared mobility device services in the City of Carlsbad. The second item was a presentation to City Council to provide an overview of micromobility and regional efforts to date and to solicit direction regarding the city's participation in the north county coastal bikeshare pilot program. The.timeline in the attachment included presenting an ordinance for consideration in April. The current plan is to request direction from City Council regarding participation in the bikeshare City Manager's Office City I-tall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 Memo ID #2019028 Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council April 8, 2019 Page 2 pilot program first, which will occur in early May. Once City Council provides direction, the · appropriate ordinance will be prepared for consideration and adoption soon thereafter. Next steps The revised timeline is as follows: • North county coastal bikeshare pilot program consideration -early May 2019 • Mobility ordinance introduction and adoption -late May/early June 2019 Attachment: Memorandum on Micromobility Update dated Jan. 30, 2019 cc: Celia Brewer, City Attorney Elaine Lu key, Chief Operations Officer Walter Chung, Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services David Graham, Chief Innovation Officer Neil Gallucci, Police Chief Debbie Fountain, Community & Economic Development Director . Marshall Plantz, Transportation Director Mickey Williams, Assistant Police Chief Amanda Guy, Deputy City Attorney Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager Christie Marcella, Economic Development Manager Massoud Saberian, City Traffic Engineer Craig Williams, Senior Engineer .. •. To the members of the: crrtCOONCIL . . ACM.JlcA, .. i .ccd... Date 7-~4~JqcML coo L · 11 Memorandum Attachment .r;. . ~Cityof Carlsbad Jan. 30,' 2019 To: From: 1-tonorable Mayor HaJI n bers of the City Council . "'AW.-.,. Scott Chadwick, City na Re:. Micr·omobiiity Update · The purpose of this memoran<lum is to provide an overview and update of the north coast cities' involvement in mkromobility. Background MicromobiliW is .a relatively recentternt th;;it refers to short (.micro) trips (niobiliJy}, usually after using niil.SS transit. mode~ oftraveL These trips are often refetredto as ''first mile/last mile" portions of a longer transit tr[p; ·with the idea thatonce you arrive .at a central station, your trip is not complete until you arrive at your actual destination. PreViolisly~these.tripsvvere commonly provided viataxis, t!,.eli shared-mobility providers such as U:b:er or Lyft. As shared- mobility options became more prevalentthroµghsmart.a.phone -appS,, le:ss expensive,options such as bikesfrare;and even scooter~share became popular. Micromobil.itytrips can often be substitutes for walking or' short vehil:::Je trips .. In additipn to being le:ss expensive,. bikeshare and $(:Ooter-share are also appealing to cities because they minimize vehicularcongestio:nand p~rking, For everyb:ikesJ,are qrg_~oofet'-Shate trip, there is generally· Offe les:s car trip, whkh is helpful in attaining the c1ty's Ciim;ate Action Plan (CAP) goais ant! to reduce congestion on citystreets. The convenience and popularity ofthese new trans~ortatioh rnodes bring.issues that are new to most cities, such a~whete bik~s and scooters tan legaily operate and park. As cities in the region began to en¢ouhter these challenges~ San Diego Association of cfovemrnents (SAN DAG) established the Regional MicromohiliJY Coorclihation effort. SANDAG~s website states: Micromobility services like dockless bikeshare, e-scooters'c, and neighborhood ele.ttric vehides (~fEVs) have quickly becon,e popular mobility choices in the San Dieg:o region. While these IOW sp~ed travel rnode_s offer convenient travel options, the operation of successful mictorrmbilit:y programs can be challenging for lo.cal ag«;:!ncies. SAN DAG has est~biished a Regional MkromobilityCdorqination effort to support local Jurisdictions as they depfoy mkro,mobility programs while. buiJding consensus among cities and other stakeholcfers in the areas of data sharing, rnicromobjjity parking and passenger load)ni educ.ation/outreach, and equity. Because ofthe newness of these S'ervice's and vendor operations, several cities·, indµqihg Carlsbad, have encounte'red vendors who requested perrnissi9n to ope,rc1te. within the north. coast cities; In August 2018, one such vend.or approache.d the city of Carlsbad to request a City Manager's Office . . City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434"-2820 Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council Jan. 30, 2019 Page i permit to operate. The city denied the permit, citing an existing ordinance that prohibited "skateboarding, in line sl<ates, roller skates, toy vehicles; coaster or any other similar form of transportation" from operating on public space in the Village area. Similarly, the eity of Oceanside recently encountered another vendor who deposited scooters Within their .jurisdiction without permission. To help acldress these types of issues, other north coast cities have adopted or are pursuin~ a shared mobility ordinance. On Dec. 12, 2018, the city of Solana Beach approved s_uch an ord.inance (see Attachment 1). The cities of Del Mar and Encinitas are presenting similar ordinances to their respective councils in the coming months. Discussion The city of Carlsbad's early discussions on micromobility were included in the Coastal Mobility Readiness Plan (Jan. 2016), where the idea of a bikeshare system was included. The idea was also included in early Sustainable Mobility Plan discussions, as weli as recognized in CAP implementation efforts as an opportunity to help achieve the 33 percent mode-shift goal in the CAP. The Coastal Mobility Readiness Plan stated that a. system would likely be .more successful if it were employed by <!II north coast cities. In mid-2017, SAN DAG offered to takethe lead in coordinating the cities. At that time, several bikeshare companies began offering their dockles$ systems to cities around the U.S., with some systems offered free of charge. Such was the case in the City of . . Imperial Beach, which accepted an offer i_n mid-2017 and deployed 200 bikes around their city. Most cities were interested in this approach to bikeshare because it provided an affordable system as compared to most previous bikeshare systems. Pri.or to 2017, bikeshare. systems consisted largely of bikes that were parked in docking stations located on public rights-of-way, such as public plazas, wide sidewalks, train stations; community centers, etc. These d_ocked systems had been growing around the U.S. and the world at a cost of up to $5;000 per bike. As of last year, there were well over 100 docked systems in the U,S. and over 1,000 in the. world. Since mid-2017, SANDAG facilitated discussions with staff from the cities of.Encinitas, Del Mar, _ Solana Beach, Carlsbad and Oceanside, as well as with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and North County Transit District (NCTD), around the possibility of piloting a bikeshare program in the north county coastal region. The collective agreement was not to include scooter-share in this,effort. As discussions progressed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a pilot bikeshare program was developed for use by the cities and SAN DAG; Under the MOU, it was the intent of the cities. to collectively agree .upon a single bikeshare vend.or to operate within the north coastal San Diego region to achieve economies of scale, reduce conflicts among competing . Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council J,m, 30; 201Q Page3 verid.ors ar1d provide pptini~I convenience to (.tsers !Jy belng able to rent. a bi~e in one jiJrisdictic:m and terminate the rental in another jurisdiction. The pJlotbikeshare program was planned to have a term of one year. Atthe erid -of the pilot, the partn.er cities would evaluate progr.amsuccess and det~rmine whether to extend the program;.. the o:r'igirjal proposed schedule for the. pilot la9nch wa$ mid-20la. The cities of l:ncinitas, Solana Beach and Del Mar signed the Mou in March 2018. Though the cities of Carlsbad and Oceans.ide did not:sign it duefo other bikeshi:lre system experi<:!lic;es in the region, staff from both dties· have actively partidpat<:!d wlth the other dties co.nsisterit with the MOLL Tne city of Carlsbad hi:ls set up a rnulthdepartmental team to dis.cuss micrornobility, which includes: • Public Works • Community & Economic Development • Parks & Recreation • Po.lice • Risk • Co.mrnu]iicatjOris • City Man age r's offiJ:e • City Attorney's Office In April 2.018, on behalf Qf the north cpas_t cities, the city of Encinitas issued a Requestfor Information (RFl)to identify vendors with the resources to pHota bikeshare program in the respect\ve Jurisdidioos, i'n accordance with objec(ives to establish, implement and:·malntajn an innovatfve-,. v,clluableand mutuc1lly l:leneficiai b.ikesh~re program at no cost to-th~ cities. lt-was:a mechanism for gathering information and did not necessatilycoristitute.a binding procurement process; however, se.le.ctfon of goods ahd/or services could re·sulUrom the process, Further, each city reta.ined full discretion to award, or not award; therightto op.erate a regional bikeshare program in their respective jurisdictions through the RH Staff from alJ the-cities~ in duding Carlsl:lad and Oceanside; as well as iVl;:irine Corps Base Camp Pendleton_ arid NCTD, reviewed th~ RHVendqt submit-tats. The process:extend¢d welli'nto late 2018, as the agencies discussed issues such as:· control of r;:indom parking in unsuitable areas and use of e,-bikes (ele~tric-powered bikes), Followl'ng diligent review and evaluation by the group, Gotcha was sele.cted as the preferred vendor. During the one-year pl!ot bikeshare program, Gotcha proposes to operate the program at no direct cost to the cities. However/that maybe <;:ohtiilgent on them being permitted to place adV!;!rtising on or near the docking station/bike racks. They do not currently propose to place any advertising on the bikes. The exact parameters of any advertising would need to be negotiated between a participating city and Gotcha. One of the deciding factors with Gotcha was their approach to controlling the random parking issue, which was a concern with other dockless systems. they provide. an ·opportunity'for geo.- Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council Jan. 30, 20:1-9 Page4 fencing parking locations. Th.is geo-fern;:e defines where bikes can be parked; which controls random placement within the cities' rights-of-way. The geo-fence could be located around existing bike racks or a Bike Parking sign; for example, The same smartphone app that is used to rent the bikes also informs the users where it is acceptable to park and does not allow parking in unacceptable areas without fines (since locations of where users park the bikes are difficult to control; steep fines are assessed ora lockout is activated by Gotcha, if illegally parked). It should be noted that the cities may incur indirect costs to install additional bike racks of its choice (e.g., Carlsbad's "Bike the VIiiage" bike racks), prepare locations for bike docks (e.g., build concrete pads), provide staff oversight for th.e program and regulate use of Gotcha's bikes. Should the city decide to execute an agreement with Gotcha, Carlsbad would launch a one-year pilot in conjunctionwith the other cities. The. pilot would include .an education and outreach campaign to be ied by Gotcha. In summary, participating north coast cities have pursued, through the RFI process, selection of a single bikeshare vendor based on evaluation ofproposals. Each interested city is now evaluating whether to move forward with executing a license agreement with Gotcha. Some cities are considering a contract with Gotcha to exercise their NEV service option to provide shuttles within their jurisdiction in addition to bikeshare. Next steps The schedule for the cities of Encinitas, Del Mar and Solana Beach is as follows; • Mobility Ordinance adoption'---Feb./Mar. 2019 (for Encinitas and Del Mar, respectiveiy; Solana Beach already adopted an ordinance in Dec. 2018) • Council approval of vendor -early winter 2019 • Execute license agreement -winter 2019 • Bikeshare pilot deployment -summer ~019 F,or Carlsbad~ staff is preparing to present a similar mobility ordinance to City Council for its consideration in April 2019, and to bdng forward an item for City Council discussion on micrornobility program options. Attachment: 1. City of Solana Beach Staff Report on Share_d Mobility Program Ordinan.ce Nov, 28, 2018 (for first reading; approved at second reading on Dec. 12, 2018) cc: Celia Brewer, City Attorney Elaine Lu key, Chief Operations Officer Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager Walter Chung, Assistant City Attorney Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council Jan'. 30, 2019 Pa~e 5 David Graham,. C:hief Innovation Officer· Neil Gallucci; Police Chief Paz Gomez, Public Works Director Debbie Fountain, Commnnity & Economic Development Director Marshall Plantz; TransportatiQn Director Amanda Guy1 Deputy.City Attorney Jason Haber, Asslstaht to the City Manager Christie MarceU:a, Economic Development Manager Craig Williams, Senior Engineer · iO: FROM: MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Honorable Mayor and City Councilmenibers Gregory Wade, City Manager November 28, 2018 City Manage;ir's Department lntrocfuce (1st Reading) Ordinance No. 495 -Shared Mobility Program The City of Solana Beach (City) is increasingly aware of the need to r~duce. local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change while offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. The City Council (Council) approved the City's first ever Climate Action Plan (CAP) on July 12, 2017. The CAP establishe$ a number of strategies to achieve GHG emissions reduction goals and targets, including facilitating safe, convenientand affordable alternative transportation options. In addition, the City Council Work Plan has included an Unprioritized Environmental SustainabJlity item to explore a bikeshare/car share program for the past several years. On March 14, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-030 approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a pilot North County Coastal Regional Bikeshare Program. The City, along with the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Carlsbad and Oceanside, as well as Camp Pendleton, the San Diego Association · of Governments (SAN DAG) and the North County Transit District (collectively known as the Parties) desire to establish a fom:,al working relationship to develop a pilot bikeshare program. It was the desire of the Parties to collectively agree upon a single bikeshare vendorto operate within the North Coastal San Diego region to achi.eve economies of scale, to reduce conflicts between competing vendors, and to provide optimal convenience to users by being able to rent a bicycle in one jurisdiction and terminate the rental iii another jurisdiction who is also a party to the MOU. Due to the aggressive promulgation of . other less desirable modes of alternative transportation, such as e-scooters, and to include other potential desirable alternative modes of transportation, such as Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) ride-share COUNCIL ACTION: AGENDA ITEM C.3. November 28, 201a Ordinance 495 -Shared Mobility Page 2.of3 optionsi City Stafffelt it.was necessary to develop an ordinance to establ.ish ttie rules and gt.1idelin.es for the proposed program. Since the program cot1ld include other forms of altem.ative tra;nsportation optio:ns, $faff felt th~ program should be expanded from just a bikeshare program to a ilshareo mobility" prqgtarn , · · · · . ,• .. . . This item i~ before City Coiincil tq consider 1qfroducing Ordinance 495 establishing the guidelines for the. upcoming Shared Mobility· pilot program. DlSCUSSION; Staff frorn all of the Parties continue to meet to discuss th!3 logistics of the pltQt program and coorc;Jinated the· development of the Request for lnformatinn (RFI). the RFI was posted on April 5, 2018 ancl respondent interviews were held on June 11, 2018. · A preferred vendor has been s$lected b.utcontract negotiatiom, are $till ongoing. As part of the dngoirig contract negotiations, the respective city attorneys from some of the participating jurisdictions have disqussed the pilot. prognfm i!md proposed He~m~e agreement. Outing thei:>e . discussions, our City Attorney has tecommended that an ordinance be adopted to est~.bJish the guidelines for the shared mobi,lity-program td ensure that the original intentofthe program be solidftled. For Solana BeE:ich, this WotJJq specific~ny ensure that there would be bnly one selected vendor an.d that only bicycles, and potentially an Neighborhood Electrie Vehicle (NEV) ride share component be. inch.ided in the program at this tlme, While the i'ntent of th~ c:1rrangements between th¢, Parties ls that each. jurisdicfrori would have the abiHty to negotiate various terms for their specific jurisdiction (i.e. nomper of bike~; docked, · dockle~s or a hybrid approach; locations for parking,· geofences, etc.), the core progr~rn guicfelines would be incluqed, These include: ·· • lmpiernentation of a pilot shared mobility program-with only one. vendor • City c.,mtrol over the amount of sh~r~d mobility devrbes and the structure of the program (docked, dockless or hybrid) • _ lrnplementijtion of a robust education and outreach progtam prior to the start of fu~pmgram , • Limitations Ori City liabilify • City access to ridership data including fleet status, and trip patterns If the City Council approves the introduction of Ordinance 49$, Cfty Staff wiil pegin negotiations with the preferred vendot on the license agreement if both parties c.orne to an agreement on the terms, the license agreement will be brought back to City Council · for formal revlew. .and adoption. The intent is to haVE! the Shc1r~d Mobility Pit()t Program implemented prior to the start of next summer with enough time factored in prior to lai.n:ich to conduct a robust community outreach program. CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: November 28, 2018 Ordinance 495 -Sharet;i Mobility Page 3 of 3 The action being considered · by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be.cause. it is not a "project" under Section 15378(b )(5) of CEQA Guideiines. · · · · · FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fisc.al impact as a result of this item. WORK PLAN: Exploring the potential for a bikeshare/car share program has been an item in the Unprioritized Environmental Sustainability Issues section of the Work Plan for the past several years. OPTIONS: • Introduce Ordinance 495 est<:1blishing the guidelines for the Shared Mobility Pilot Program · · · 11 Do not.introduce Ordinance 495 • Provide direction DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council introduce Ordinance 495 establishing the guidelines for the Shared Mobility Pilot Program. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: mmendation. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 495 ORDINANCE 495 AN OADINAN.CE OF THE CITY. COUNCll,. OF THE CITY OF SO:LANA Bt;ACH, CALIFORNIA .APOfNG CHAPTER 10.46 TO THE SOLANA BEACH IVIUNfCIPAL CODE REGARDING SHARED MOBiLITY PROGRAM . .. Wi-fERSAS, the City of Solana Beach (City) 1s increasingiy aware of the ne.ed to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to Jiniitthe 1:;ffects-of climate cha,ngewhU~ offering viable transportation alternatives to driving; · . WHE$EAS) th$ City Council {Q·ounciJ) approved the final Clir,tiate Action Pic1.n (CAP) on July 12i 2011. The CAP establish·e$ a number of strategies to achieve GHG. emissions reductipr, goals and targets; including facilitating safe, convenient and affordable al.temative transportation . options; .· WHl;llEAS,, the City Council Work Plan has . included ah Unprioritized EhVironmental Sustainability item to :explore a bikeshare/ca.r share program fc>Y the past several years; WHERJ;AS, on Match 14, 2016, the CityCoµncilapproved Resolution2.018;;0$O approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to estab(i$h a pilot North County Coastal Regiooar $ikeshare Program; The City, along with the b1ties of Del Mar, l=noinitas, Carlsbad and Oceansii:fe., as wefl as Camp · Pendlefon, the San Diego Association of G.overnments (SANDAG) and the North County Transit Di"sfrict desire to establish a formal working relationsh.ip to develop a pilot bikeshare program; WHEREAS, there has been an ag.gressiv<3 and excesshte ptomulgatlon otmodes of alternative tra11$poliation ranging. from less desirable modes to potentially more desirable modes of a!temative, modes of transportation and th.?re is a need to regulate the safe and efficient use and management offhe public right-of;,.way; · WHEREAS~ expanding the e~plotatioh of a City bikeshare program to a "shared mobility" program will help achieve City goals with respect to the CAP and public right,.of., way man~g~rnent; and · · · · WHEREAS, establishing guidelines tor a sh.ared mobility pilot program is necessary to provide safety and clarity for users of the public right-of-way and permit applicants. · NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solar,q B$ach does ordain as. follows-: · Siection 1. All of the above staternents are. tn,ie. ATTACHMENT 1 Section 2; Tl1e City Council finds that thi$ action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because there is no development or physical chahge that would result from -the adoption of this 6rdim:1nce. Section 3. Chapter 10.46 is added to the Solana Beach Municipat Code and · shall read as follows: Chapter 10.46 Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program 10.46.010 Purpose. Consistent with the City's goals of enhancing mobility and access, easing traffic congestion, promoting sustainability and achieving its Climate Action Plan this Chapter creates a limited term pilot program to facilitate the use of shared tnobility devices while ensuring the protection of public health and saJety, including the safety of the public traveling by foot, bicycle or any vehicle on public sidewalks,·streets and other public rights~of~way. 10.46.020 Definitions. (a) "Abandon" shall mean leaving any item unattended for any length of time. (b) "City Manager'i shall mean the City Mahage:r or his:orher designee. (c) "Operator'' shall mean any person or business entity selected by the City to participate in the Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program pursuant to this Chapter. (d) "Public area" shall mean any outdoor area that is open to the public tor public use, whether owned or operated by the City or a private party. (e) "Public right-of;-way" shail mean any public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway, sidewalk or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated or controlled by the City. · (f) "Shared mobility device" shall nieah any device by wbich a person can be transported, propelled, moved or drawn, that is rented, used, located, displayed, offered or placed for rent in any public area or public right~of-way, except that a ''shared mobility device" does not include a rental car, taxicab or any other device excluded pursuant to administrative regulations. 10.46.025 Administrative regulations. (a) The City Manager may adopt administrative regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, permit application procedures · and permit standards, which may include regulations relating to. lawful conduct, public safety, data sharing, data privacy and/or the timely removal of hazards. . (b} No person shall fail to comply with the City's administrative regulations. Any violation of any aqm1nistrative regulation issued pursuant to this Seotion shaJI constitute a violation of this Code.and shall subject the violator to the penalties s(:)f forth in this ~a~e~ · · 10.46.030 Prohibited conduct. Notwithstanding any other provisioh: of this Code, no pen,on may: (a) Display, offor or make availfl,ble for rent :any shar13d i11obility clevice within the City, unless the person has first qbtalned: {1) a Vcllid shared mobility operatqr permit; (2) a license agre.emerit approved by City Councif;.and (3) a business certificate issued in accordance with ChapJer 4.Q2 of this Code; · · · (b) Abahtjon a shared mobility deviqe n()t authorized by this Chapter in. the. public right .. of .. way or a p\.lblic area; · (c) Abandon a shared mobility device in the public right .. of-way. or a public area in ~ manner that: (t) 'obstruct$ travel upon or blocks access. to a pub1i6; righhlf .. way; (2). poses an immediate publfo safety hazard; or (3) is otherwise prohipited by applicable, laws. or administrative regulations; or (d) Use or aid and abet the use of any shared mqbility oevice in a manner that wpufd violate any appHcable law or administrative regulation.· 10.46.040 1\/laxJmum m,un:ber qf shared i11Qbility operator permlts and shared mobility devices permjtted. · (a) The City Manager may issue, dhe shared rnobilify oi;:Yerator permit aut.hori:z:ing the deployment ofsha:red mobility devices withtn the City. (b) The number and mode(s) of shared mobility devices authorized under each . shared mobilit,Y operator permit shall be estaqlished pursµant to a Hceh$.e agreement approved by City Council. (~} At any.fime, in the City GbLmoil's discretion; the City Counc.il may reassess the number of shared 111obility operator permits authorized for issuance,. 10.46.050 Shared mobility operator permit applicatfon p·rocedure, fees and requirements. (a) Any person se.eking to obtain a shated mobility operator permit shall have timely responded to a request for information advertised for a sharecl mobility program Witt,ih the City. {b) The City Council ma:y establish permit fees and charges by resolution, which shall: (1) Pefray the City's costs in administering and enforcing the provisions of this Chapt<3t; and (2) Reflect charges associated with use of public property pursuant to this Chapter. (c) The City Manager may specify the information tha:t must be provided in connection with an application and the form in whieh the information is to be provided. The application shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) The name and business address of each person or entity that: (i) has more than a ten percent equity, participation, or revenue interest in the appiicant; or (ii) is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity or of ariother entity that owns or · controls the applicant, excepting persons seiving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizatjolis exempt from income taxes under Section 501 (c){3), (4), or (6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2} The name and business address of any parent or subsidiary Qf the appHcant, namely, any other business entity owning or controlling the applicant inwhole or in part, or owned or controlled in whole orin part by the applicant., and a statement describing the nature of any such parent or subsidiary business entity; (3) Information sufficient to show that the applicant is· financially, technically, and legally qualified to operate and maintain a shared mobility devJce system; (4) A description of the proposed plan of operation, including, at a minimum, a detailed description of: · · (i) The applicant's current operations in the City and other jurisdictions, including copies of the. applicant's operating permits for all such jurisdictions, (ii) The applicant's proposed operations in the-Cittincludingthe maximum number of shared mobility devices anticipated during the quraffon of the pilot program, the plan for balancing shared mobility devices for Citywide coverage, the plan for shared 11Jobility device maintenance; levels of staff for operations and administration, and the plan for customer service, (iii) The applicant's regulatory compliance program, (iv) The applicant's and the applicant's customers' history of, intent to, and ability to comply with, State and local law, (v) The applicant's plans to implement safety programs, includin9, for example, a program by which the applicant will receive information about, notify users of and stop inappropriate use, · (vi) The applicant's plans to educate users-of shared mobility devices about applicable California Vehicle Code provisions a,hd other applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines, · (vii) The applicant's plan$ to comply With applicable Federal, State; and local data privacy laws and otherwise to protect the privacy ·Of personal information provided by vsers, ~nd ~viii) Ant other requirements set forth by administrative regulation. 10.4Et060 Shared mobilitY <>perator selE!ction .. . (a) The Shared Mobility Operator shall be setected putsuantto a requestfor information: process. · · ·· {b) The City Manager shall review ail applications and make a ranking of each qualified applicant irr accordance· with objective criteria set forth by this Cha.pf er and administrative regulations, · (c} Each qualified appHcaht!$hc:tll pe evaluated t:>ased up¢n objective criteria including: experience; proposed operations plan; financ.ial wherewithal and stapllity; adequat:Y of insurance; &bility to begm operation$ in a timely manner; publfo education strategies; r~levant record of the applicant's, officers\ owners', principals' or customers' violaticms of Federal, State or •local law, or rules and regulations; ~od any other objective criteria established by administrative regulation. · (d) Each qualifted appiicant shall be provided an opportunJtyto submit written comments or objections, to the C1ty Manager's rankings of qualified a,pplicants. (.e) The Clty Manager shall set forth, in writingi the reasons supporting his or her final determination. The City Manager may request additional infOrrnci,tion frqrn Qity staff, any applicant, or any other source that would a$sist in determining the final' qualifications and ranking$. (f) The City M~nager shall grant a shared mobility operator permit to the highest ranked applicant after such applicant enters into a license agreement approved bYCity Council'. Sho4ld two applicants receive the same score, a lqtterry sh ail be used to establish the final rankings for any applicants that achieved the same score. (g) The City Manager's deterrninations under this Section shall constitute the final decision ofihe City and $hall not be $Ubjectto further adrnlnistrative review. (h) The City Manag~r may impo$e, as part of any share~ mobility operator permit issued; any and all ccnditiqhs that are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, mitigate traffic impacts, ensure acoessibility of the public right-of-way and availability of public space for shared use by alli or protect the heaJth, welfare, antj safety of the public. No person shall fail to comply with such permit conditions. 10.46.()70 LimitatiQns on City liability. To the fullest extent permitted by Jaw, the City shall notassurne any liability whatsoever with respect to ha:ving issued a shared mobility operator permit or otherwise approving the operation of any shared mobility device. As a condition to the issuance of any shared mopility operator permit; fhe applicant shall be required to meet all of the following conditions: (a) The applicant must execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, defend (at applicant's sole cost and expense), and hold har111less the City, and its offlcers, officials, employees, representativ~s; and agents from any and all claims, losses, damages1 injuries, liabilities or losses which arise out of, or which are in any way related to, the City's issuahce of or decision to approve a shared mobility operator permit, the process used by the City iil rnal<ing its decision, or the alleged violation of any Federal, State or local laws by th(;;! applicant or · any of its officers, managers, employees or agents. · · (b) Maintain insurance at coverage limits, and with cohditionsthereon. determined necessary and appropriate from time to time, as determined by the Risk Manager and name the City of Solana as additional insured. The applicant's insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty days' prior Written notice has been given to the City, If any insurance policy issued to a permittee is cancelled for any reason, the permit issued under this Chapter is automatically suspended. In order to reinstate the permit, the permittee shall provide a hew certificate and policy of ihsurance to the City. (c) Reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including., but not limited to, attorney fees and costs, which it may be required to pay as a. result of any legal challenge related to the City's approval of or activities conducted pursuant to the applicant's .shared mobility operat9r p.etmit. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defonse of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve any of the obligatio.ns imposed hereunder. · (d) The applicant ntust execute a license agreement in a form approved by City Council. 10.46 .. 080 Grounds for revocation, suspension or denial. A shared mobility operator permit may be revoked, suspended1 or denied by the City Manager based upon any of the following grounds: (a) An applicant or operator, including its employees, managers, officers, principals, directors, owners·, contractors, representatives, or agents: (1) Making one or more false or misleading statements, or material omissions on the permit application, during the application process, or during the pilot program; · · .. (2) Failing to provide. information requested or required by the City; (3) Operating, proposing to operate or aiding or a.betting operating ih a manner that endangers: public healfh or safety; br .· . . (4) Fa.Hing to comply or aiding. or abetting: a faiiure to comply With any requirement bnposeq by the ptdVi$ions of this Code { or successor provision or . provisfqns) including any wle, r$gulatjon, condition or standard adopted pursuant to this Chapter, or any term or condition imposedori the shared mobility operator per111it, or any provision of State law. · _ (b) Cohvictio.n ofthe 'operator, to inclu_de any· of i(s officers, owner~ gr principals, of a criminal offens$ that is substantially related to the qual_ifioations, functions ot duties of' the sha.red mobility business or professioti, inclu~ing; but not limited to, cl-riY crimioa.t conviction involving a Violent or serious felony; fraud; deoeit, or embezz:lement. . (0) Repeated failures by opertl,tor's cu$tor:ners-fd comply with ~ny requirement lmpo_sed by the provisions ofthis Code (or successor provisibn or provisions) including any ·rnle, regu!atioh, condition orstandard ~dopted pursqant to this Ch~pter, or any,terrri o,r condition imposed on the shared mobility operator permit;. or any provision of Sfate law. ··· · t0.46,090 PUot prc,gr~m term·~ Arty p$rn,if i$$Ved pursu$lt to this Chapter shall termina.te and be of.no further force or · effectbeyoncfDecetnber.30, 2020, u.nle$S otherwise extended or termfnateq e~rlierby _ the City. 10.46; 100 lmpoundment of devices. (a) A shared mobiiity device that is rented, used, displayed, offered, or madE: avctilable for re11t, or abandoned, in the public right-of-way of a public' area in violation of Seotion 1.0.46 .. 030 shall be subject to immediate impoundment by the City. (I:>) The City Council may adopt impound fees by resolution, which shall reflect the City's enforcement, investigation, adminjstration, storage arid impound costs. (c) No person shall retrieve any impound.edsharedmobilitydevice except upon demonstrating properproof of ownership of the clevice and pa:yrnent ofapplicable impound fees. (d) Any shared mobility device not retrieved from impound for more than_ 30 days shall be deemed abandoned and may, in the City Manager's discretion, be de$troyed or auctioned in accordance with appficable state law. 1. 0.46.11 O Enforcemt:lnt. (a) Any person who vio.lates any provision of this Chapter1 including any permit condition, shall be guilty of an infraction or.a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of this Code. (bJ Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, including any perm it condition, $half be subject fo administrative fin$$ and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.18 of this CodeL (c) Any person convicted of violating this Chapter in a criminal case, or foµnd to be in violati.on of this Chapter in a civil or administrative case brought by a law enforcement agency, shall be orden~d to reimburse the City and other participating law enforcement agencies thei.r full investigative costs. Section 4. Severability. In the event that any court of competent Jurisdiction holds any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance to be unconstitutional, preempted or othetWise invalid, the invalid portion shall be severed from this Ordinance and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions of this O_rdinance. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, paragraph; . sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordrnanpe irrespective of whether any one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, S1?ntences, clauses or phrases in this Ordinance n,ight be declared unconstitutional, preempted or otherwise invalid. Section 5. Conflicts with Prior Ordinances. In the event that any City ordinance or regulation, in whole or in part, adopted prior to the effective. date of this Ordinance, conflicts with a,ny provisions ih this Ordinance, the provisions in this Ordinance will control.. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fiftc1en ( 15) days · after its adoption, the City Clerk. of the City of Solana Beach shall cause this Ordinance to be published pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, oo the 28th day of November, 2018; and . .. -• THEREAFTER ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California., on u,e _._day of December, 201'8, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Al3SfAIN: ABSENT: Colincilmempers - Councilmembers ,..., Councilrnembers -- Councilmembers -- APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Affomey DAVID A. ZITO, Mayor ATTEST: ANGELA IVEY, City crerk .