D
ATE: June 25, 2019
TO
: Ron Davis, City Manager
F
ROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
Via: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director – Transportation By: Nick Burant, Administrative Analyst
S
UBJECT: Introduce an Ordinance to Regulate Sha red Use Mobility Devices in the City of Burbank
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
(1) Introduce an ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR SHARED USE MOBILITY DEVICES;
(2) Adopt a RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING A FORM OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE SHARED USE
MOBILITY DEVICE PROGRAM, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR TOWING AND STORAGE OF DEVICES, ADDING SECTION 14 TO ARTICLE I OF THE FY 2019- 2020 CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR THE SHARED USE
MOBILITY PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE FEES COLLECTED UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION
15. BACKGROUND
The purpose of this item is to establish regulations and operating requirements for shared use mobility devices within the City of Burbank. Shared use mobility devices are small human or battery powered machines that are made available for rent in the publ ic right of way.
Shared use mobility devices include electric scooters, electric bicycles, and regular pedal bicycles. For the purposes of this staff report they will be referred to as simply “devices,” unless otherwise noted.
S
hared use mobility devices gained popularity in the United States at the beginning of the 2010 decade when large cities such as New York and Washington, DC implemented bicycle sharing programs. These programs involved docking stations. In the docking station model, Attachment 1
2 users check out devices at a specified hub, which contains a large number of devices. Users take them to go wherever they need to, but must return the devices to any docking station.
Users pay a fare (fixed or time-based) to ride. Docking stations are typically placed all around a city so that a user is never far from one, creating a usable network. The capital costs of docked systems are high, and operations are generally subsidized by government agencies and/or advertising revenue.
In 2015, Santa Monica launched Los Angeles (LA) County’s first docked bicycle sharing (bikeshare) system. LA County Metro, partnering with the City of LA, followed shortly thereafter, debuting their docked bikeshare network in July 2016. Several other LA area cities have bikeshare systems, including West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills. In 2017, City staff investigated the feasibility of bringing Metro’s docked bikeshare system to Burbank. Staff found that the cost and maintenance would have been prohibitively expensive, with up- front capital costs of approximately $364,000 and annual operating costs of $438,000 per year.
In 2017, the amount of bikeshare bicycles in the US more than doubled to nearly 100,000 bikes. This large jum p was due in large part to dockless bikeshare systems. Dockless bikeshare systems are an alternate bikeshare model that do es not require users to pick up bicycles at a hub, rather, they can be picked up and dropped off anywhere in the public right of way. Fares are generally charged on a per -minute basis. Dockless systems are typically paired with smartphone applications – users use their phones to find, unlock, and pay for their rides. The advantage behind dockless systems is that they eliminate the need for trips to begin and end at a hub. Capital costs for dockless systems are lower, and these systems generally utilize alternative business models to generate revenue from their systems.
Scooters are two- wheeled electric mobility devices that operate as a model similar to dockless bicycles and are also rented through smartphone applications. Bird launched the first scooter company in September 2017 in Santa Monica. Several other companies entered the market shortly thereafter, including Lime (which started as a dockless bikesharing company), Uber, and Lyft. Scooters became a national story in late 2017 and early 2018 as many of these companies launched in jurisdictions without the permission of City officials.
The response of c ities across the country has varied, with cities banning scooters outright , entering into operating agreements with specific companies or operators, or creating comprehensive regulatory programs that allow several companies to operate in their jurisdictions.
The City of Los Angeles has recently allowed devices including electric scooters to be offered for rent in city right -of-way, and has permitted thousands of devices in areas surrounding Burbank, particularly North Hollywood and Atwater Village. Glendale is also considering regulations on shared use mobility devices. Devices from these cities have made their way into Burbank.
The newfound prevalence of shared use mobility devices as a transportation option presents regulatory and management problems for cities. Cities must now grapple with blocked sidewalks, managing large numbers of devices in the right -of-way, public safety concerns, device maintenance issues, and increased regulatory costs , among other things. As 3 surrounding jurisdictions allow these devices and because these devices have arrived in Burbank, staff believes the City Council should consider formalizing rules for their operation in Burbank.
DISCUSSION
The use and distribution of shared use mobility devices has grown significantly in the greater LA area over the past two years. These devices present opportunities and challenges for the City in regulating their use and providing new mobility options.
Rationale for Regulation
These devices present the City, its residents, businesses and visitors with a new transportation alternative, particularly for short trips that are currently made by automobile, or to connect to transit . T he use of these devices also presents an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Shared use mobility devices are either electric or pedal powered, meaning there are no harmful air pollution emissions associated with their operation; and they potentially replace auto trips . For these reasons, allowing the use of these devices meet s many of the goals and policies of the City’s Mobility Element of the Burbank 2035 General Plan.1
Current Regulatory Environment
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21235 governs the use of motorized scooters in the public right of way . CVC Sections 21200 – 21213 govern the operation of bicycles in the public right of way, which apply to any dockless bicycle systems . State law regulates scooter and bicycle operation in the public right of way including where they may operate, helmet use, manner of operation, and other issues. A summary of state law as they relate to bicycles and scooters is attached as Exhibit F.
There are a few local municipal regulations that cover the operation of bicycles in Burbank.
Local regulations for bicycles include a prohibition of sidewalk riding in Downtown Burbank, and specific regulations that pertain to bicycle paths like the Chandler Bikeway , but there are no City regulations for shared use mobility devices . Exhibit F also includes a summary of local regulations.
Neither state law nor local r egulations govern the particular issues relating to the renting of devices in the public right of way, nor do they currently give the City adequate tools to address operational or nuisance issues that could arise if shared use mobility device rental in Burbank becomes prevalent. Thus, staff recommends the City Council consider new regulations to close this current regulatory gap in the municipal code.
Regulatory Issues Considered
1 Goal 2 of the Mobility Element and its five policies cover adapting to changing mobility needs; Policy 3.5 covers designing street improvements to expand bicycle systems; Goal 5 and its five policies cover fostering ped estrian and bicycle travel as healthy and environmentally sound methods to reduce vehicle trips and improve community character. 4 Shared use mobility devices and their rapid rise in popularity have led to a number of regulatory issues. City staff considered several issues in developing their proposed regulations.
• Allowing Devices in Burbank : Staff initially considered banning the devices from operating in Burbank . However, these devices allow the City to meet several of its mobility goals, as outlined above. Furthermore, t he prohibition of the devices still requires management staff time and resources to enforce the prohibition; and the cities who ban the devices are left without the resources to manage the devices.
Indeed, the City of Beverly Hills banned the devices, but since many devices are brought into Beverly Hills from LA , their police department is overrun with devices to impound. The companies also challenged the impoundments and won, leaving that city without any funds to cover the work they did. Allowing companies to operate in the City under a regulatory framework provides not only certainty and rules for the companies to follow, it allows City staff to cost effectively manage the devices.
• New/Disruptive Technology: Private shared use mobility devices have arrived in Burbank quickly and do not exist within the current regulatory framework in the City.
Other cities have struggled to adapt to the new technology and business model. Staff endeavored to create a legal framework that is flexible, adaptable, and includes a simple permitting program so shared use mobility device companies can apply, operate legally and with certainty, especially as business models continue to evolve.
• Pilot Program: Staf f considered a pilot program with a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to select preferred companies to operate in the City. However, City staff, time, and resources are stretched thin, making an RFP mechanism difficult to justify.
• Device Limits: Because of their small size and lack of discrete docking locations, cities have imposed limits on the number of devices deployed to minimize nuisance issues and impacts to right of way and private property. These limits must weigh the number of devices needed t o create a viable transportation network against the risk of having unused devices clutter the sidewalks.
• Parking and Sidewalk Issues: City staff aimed to define legal parking areas in a way that balances the availability of device parking areas with the ability to freely move along the sidewalk and still support other City sanctioned uses of the sidewalk such as bus loading zones, vehicle passenger drop- off areas, or outdoor dining . Legal parking areas must also not impede sidewalk accessibility for those with disabilities.
• Device Standards: Companies must ensure that the devices meet safety and design standards and are properly maintained so that users have properly working devices available to rent.
• Data Collection and Analysis: The use of shared use mobility devices in the City’s right of way presents the City with an opportunity to glean useful inform ation about the use of the City’s right of way and where people travel. This data will be crucial to assessing 5 the ability for shared use mobility devices to provide a travel alternative, and can help show the City where additional active transportation infrastructure is needed.
• Operations: Staff believes that regulations can foster an environment of certainty and cooperation between the City , device companies, and existing residents and businesses. The City can encourage the permitted companies to act in a responsible, neighborly manner, as well as help ensure that their users are following both state and local laws.
• Fiscal Considerations: Finally, the City must consider the fiscal impact of regulation, and whether companies who profit from use of the City right of way can offset these costs through new fees. City staff and resources are limited, so it’s imperative that the City design a program that is efficient so that staff resources are effectively allocated, and administrative costs can be offset.
Proposed Regulations
Given the limited regulatory tools currently available to the city, the experience nearby cit ies have in addressing shared use mobility device use, and the presence of these devices in Burbank today, staff has proposed a permit program that will allow shared use mobility devices to be made available for rent in the public right of way in a manner that minimizes impacts to residents and businesses. Staff has proposed new City Municipal Code (Exhibit A), a set of administrative procedures (Exhibit E), an operating agreement to be used with each operator (Exhibit C), an agreement with the City’s existing vehicle tow operator to address device removal (Exhibit D), and a set of new proposed fees to cover the cost of the program (Exhibit B). A high level summary of the regulations are found below.
Device Limits:
• Staff has proposed an overall cap of one thousand (1,000) devices . Staff believes the 1,000 device cap will create a network of devices that provides enough devices so that one is always close, but not so many that the devices sit unused. For comparison, the City of Santa Monica has a 3,000 device cap. While the resident population of both cities is similar (92,500 for Santa Monica vs. 105,000 for Burbank) and both cities have a high employment base Santa Monica has a robust tourist population, drawing in over 500,000 visitors on some weekends and holidays and has other recreational amenities that encourage higher shared use mobility device use relative to the use expected in Burbank. Staff feels that 1,000 devices is an appropriate estimate for Burbank’s shared use mobility device cap.
• The per-operator cap is set at 200 so that no one company can monopolize the City. A mechanism to increase the per -operator cap if operators can show their devices are heavily used is included.
Parking and Sidewalk Issues:
• Generally, operators must ensure that their devices are not parked in a way that impedes the regular flow of traffic in the public right of way, or in a manner that impedes the clearance on sidewalks needed for ADA compliance. 6 o The best place to park these devices is an area of the sidewalk known as the furniture zone, which is where street trees, streetlights, bike racks, and other amenities on sidewalks are typically placed.
o Staff has proposed limitations on parking within the furniture zone as well.
Users will not be able to park in bus stop areas, red curbs, and driveways and entryways, for example.
• Staff proposes a “reactive” model to enforce these regulations – staff will respond to complaints of improperly parked devices either through the operator d irectly or by dispatching the City’s tow company, Girard and Peterson. Girard and Peterson already provides similar services to the Police Department for vehicles and has both the space and capacity to undertake these services. Complaints of devices that are parked in a way that creates an immediate hazard or block ADA access will be removed immediately by Girard and Peterson.
o Devices that are otherwise parked improperly but do not pose a hazard will be moved by their respective operator within two hours of receiving notification that the device must be moved.
o Companies are expected to have operations teams available from 7 am to 10 pm every day to move devices upon request.
Device Standards:
• Scooters and bicycles must meet federal and state consumer safety and design standards.
o All devices must have brakes, a warning bell, and front and rear lights that are visible from a distance of 300 feet at normal atmospheric conditions at night. o Each electric (scooters and electric bicycles) device must be capped at a maximum speed of fifteen (15) miles per hour.
Data Sharing:
• Companies will be required to provide data on device usage, trip routes, and maintenance. In addition companies will be required to provide the City with a mechanism to verify that their data is correct. The data provided and verified will be crucial for program management, company compliance, and program evaluation. • Staff expects to use this data to plan for future infrastructure. For example, if staff finds that certain places are popular destinations for these devices, staff can install parking areas, whether those be bicycle racks, corrals, or potentially bicycle lanes. • Additionally, the data staff collects will complement the efforts of the Burbank Transportation Management Organization, learning where and why people use these devices.
Operations:
The companies will b e required to have a program liaison available during normal business hours to respond to resident, City staff, or business complaints , and coordinate with the City for events.
• Serial numbers and customer assistance phone numbers must be prominently displayed on each device.
7 • Each company is required to educate and incentivize each of its users on proper operation. Companies typically do this with in- app demonstrations, which take place before a user begins operation of the device.
• Companies will also be required to host quarterly community meetings and conduct community outreach. Staff expects them to conduct safety demonstrations, give away helmets, and inform the public of their options for those without bank accounts . Staff believes that the company outreach (both at events and in- app) will be critical to ensuring the success of the program.
• Staff is also proposing to authorize the operation of shared use mobility devices on roads that have speed limits of thirty five (35) miles per hour (mph) or less outside of bicycle lanes. Allowing devices to operate on 35 mph roadways will allow users to legally use roads that cross Interstate 5, rail lines, and other facilities that separate neighborhoods. Allowing travel on 35 mph roadways could also prevent si dewalk riding, which is not permitted.
Finally, City staff is proposing to modify BMC Section 6- 1-802 to clarify that bikes and scooters may operate on streets in Downtown Burbank (consistent with state law), but not on sidewalks or parking areas.
Staff understands that many will think that shared use mobility devices will become a public nuisance. Staff believes that regulating these devices is the best approach to managing these devices. As discussed above in relation to Beverly Hills, even banning the devices would create an administrative burden on City staff. Furthermore, given the demographics of Burbank, staff expects there to be less ridership. Lastly, the device cap will ensure that shared use mobility devices do not become a nuisance.
Proposed Fees
As part of the proposed regulations, staff recommends several new fees be established to cover the administrative costs to manage the program and to provide funds to implement minor infrastructure elements to support devices in the City.
Staff proposes an application fee to cover the cost of processing the applications . Staff also proposes an annual operator permit fee to cover the administration of the program including staff time, an information technology data platform, and support for the Public Information Office to create a public safety announcement. The annual operator permit fee will also cover operational improvements to better manage conditions for shared use mobility device operation and parking in the right of way. The annual operator fee will be based on the number of devices a company deploys. In addition, staff proposes a reimbursable device deposit fee, based on the number of devices a company deploys . The device deposit fee will fund enforcement, and will be re imbursable to the companies. Staff believes this will encourage good behavior by both the companies and incentivize the companies to encourage good behavior by their users . However, if a company’s deposit is depleted that company will need to replenish it to keep their permit in good standing. The towing and storage components are included in the Girard and Peterson Contract, and will be paid by the companies directly when removals occur. The City’s proposed fees and their amounts are listed below in Table 1.
8 Staff is conservatively estimating revenue from the program based on an assumption that two shared use mobility companies will apply to operate in the City. Based on the proposed fee schedule, this would provide $162,000 in revenue annually. This is ex pected to cover the administrative costs of the program described above, and additional fees collected if more than two operators were to apply would cover the increased costs of administering additional companies. Staff expects that any funds collected in the 2019- 2020 fiscal year from fees would offset administrative costs such that t here will be no impact on the fiscal budget by implementing the proposed regulations.
Table 1: Proposed fees for shared use mobility devices
Fee Type Fee
Application Fee $1,000
Annual Operator Fee $200 per device
Reimbursable Device Deposit Fee $150 per device
Daily Storage Fee Free for 30 days, disposal thereafter Removal/Towing Fee $107 per hour – to be paid to Girard & Peterson
Performance Bond $10,000
Table 2: Conservative Revenue Estimate for Shared Use Mobility Devices Fee Type Fee Projected
Revenue
Application
Fee
$1,000/operator X 2 Operators $2,000
Annual
Operator Fee
$200/device X 200 devices/operator X 2 Operators $80,000 Reimbursable
Device
Deposit Fee
$150/device X 200 devices/operator X 2 Operators $60,000 Total Projected Fee Revenue: $142,000
Note: Each operator will also be required to provide a $10,000 performance bond to protect the City should an operator cease operation while still having an unpaid financial obligation.
Public Outreach and Comments
Staff presented their proposal to the Transportation Commission at the March 18, 2019 Meeting. The Commission voted 3-0 to recommend staff’s plan to allow shared use mobility devices to be made available for rent. They had three recommended changes to staff’s plan:
o Implement a six month trial period for the per-operator cap; o Investigate changing the device fee to a more dynamic system, such as per-trip; o Investigate two different fee systems for scooters and bicycles due to the different risks posed to customers, drivers, and the City.
Staff’s administrative regulations include the ability to change the per -operator cap based on a company’s performance. If a company’s devices are used over a threshold of four rides per day, that company may petition the City for more devices above the 200 device cap. Staff 9 also supports the Commission’s dynamic pricing recommendation, but would like to collect data to ensure t hat it can cover the City’s regulatory burden. Staff expects to revisit the per - device fee after reviewing data from the program. Finally, staff considered two different fee systems for scooters and bicycles, but found that option would be cumbersome to administer.
Three shared use mobility companies attended the Tra nsportation Commission Meeting, Bird, Lime, and Spin. Each had the same comments, asking that the City reconsider it’s annual per device charge, the per -operator device and total overall device cap. Each company also asked that the City lower its required response time to improperly parked devices from one hour to two hours. This recommendation has been incorporated into Staff’s recommendation.
Staff held a community meeting on April 18, 2019 to present the draft recommendations, and solicited comments from NextDoor regarding Staff’s proposal. The comments received are attached in Exhibit G.
Assembly Bill 1112
Assembly Bill 1112 is making its wa y through the California State Legislature. The bill would limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate shared use mobility devices. Staff is currently monitoring the progress and content of the bill to determine how, if it is signed into law, it may affect the regulations described in this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This section provides that CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential for causi ng a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance does not have that possibility. The provision of shared mobility devices through private operators is anticipated to increase travel options with the result of reducing the use of automobil es for some shorter trips. Shared mobility devices available in the public right of way may pose some nuisances, but this is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The program provides additional guidance and enforcement tools to mitigate their presence in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed above, staff believes there will be no fiscal impact to regulating shared use mobility devices if the proposed administrative fees are approved. Each shared use mobility company will be required to pay fees to cover all costs associated with the program including administration and enforcement.
Staff conservatively estimates that two shared use mobility companies will apply to operate within the City, and that the $1 62,000 fee revenue from these operators can cover administrative costs, operational improvements to organize deployment . Nonetheless, should a maximum number of operators be permitted to use the full 1,000 device cap, the maximum amount of projected revenue would be $40 5,000. To enable this full revenue to be utilized should it be received, staff recommends to amend the FY 2019- 2020 budget and amend the 10 Fiscal Year 2019- 2020 Fee Schedule to add Article I, Section 15 – Shared Mobility Devices to include the following fees as follows
Application Fee: $1,000
Annual Operator Fee: $200/device
Reimbursable Device Deposit: $150/device
Performance Bond: $10,000
The budget will be amended appropriating up to $405,000 from revenue account 001.CD000.41011.1007 to expenditure account 001.CD32A.62085.0000.23519, as received.
Expenditures may not exceed actual revenue collected.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the regulatory framework for shared use mobility devices described in this report. This will ensure that rules are established for shared use mobility devices that address device limits (1,000 devices) ; parking rules; standards for the devices that are allowed to be deployed; data sharing requirements , and device removal.
Staff believes the proposed regulations will more explicitly define the relationship between the City and the operators , incentivize operators to be good neighbors , and allow nuisances caused by devices to be addressed. Staff further recommends setting fees to cover the City’s expenses is critical to ensure that costs to regulate the devices are recovered. Shared use mobility devices al so provide the City an opportunity to implement the Goals and Policies of the General Plan . These devices are a transportation alternative not previously available to the residents and visitors of the City. They can improve connectivity, increase transit ridership, and adapt to changing mobility needs. In 2013, the City Council committed to all of these goals in the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – Shared Use Mobility Devices Program Ordinance Exhibit B – Shared Use Mobility Devices Program Resolution Exhibit C – Shared Use Mobility Devices Program Operating Agreement Exhibit D – Girard and Peterson Shared Use Mobility Device Removal Agreement Exhibit E – Shared Use Mobility Devices Program Administrative Procedures Exhibit F – Summary of State and Local Regulations on Shared Use Mobility Devices Exhibit G – Fee Calculations and Assumptions
Exhibit H – Public Comments on Shared Use Mobility Device Program