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
.