BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 57
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Beall
VERSION: 5/19/11
Analysis by: Art Bauer FISCAL: Yes
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
SUBJECT:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
DESCRIPTION:
This bill increases the membership of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) from 19 to 21 members.
ANALYSIS:
MTC serves as both the regional transportation planning agency,
a state designation, and as the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), a federal designation for the nine county
Bay Area. The Bay Area counties include Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma. When created in 1970, MTC was the first statutorily
created transportation planning agency in California.
MTC is responsible for preparing the regional transportation
plan, a comprehensive long range planning document that
establishes planning and funding goals for the development of
mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. Other responsibilities include
prioritizing regional transportation investments, distributing
certain state and federal transportation funds to local
agencies, and reviewing local projects to determine their
compatibility with the regional transportation plan. Changes
over the years in state and federal laws have strengthened the
roles of regional transportation planning agencies and MPOs, and
have given MTC an increasingly important role in financing Bay
Area transportation improvements.
Existing law establishes a 19 person governing board, sixteen of
whom are voting members. The appointing authorities of the
voting members are as follows:
1. Two members from the City and County of San Francisco,
with one member being appointed by the mayor and one member
being appointed by the board of supervisors.
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 2
2. Eight members, two each from the counties of Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. One member from
each county shall be selected by the city selection
committee and one member shall be appointed by the boards
of supervisors of each county respectively.
3. Four members, one each from the counties of Marin, Napa,
Solano, and Sonoma. The city selection committees of each
county nominate three persons whose names are forwarded to
their respective boards of supervisors. Each board selects
a city-county representative from its county.
4. One member appointed by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG).
5. One member appointed by the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC).
Three non-voting members are appointed as follows:
1. One member appointed by the California Secretary of
Business, Transportation & Housing.
2. One member appointed by the United States Secretary of
Transportation.
3. One member appointed by the United State Secretary of
Housing & Urban Development.
This bill :
1. Enlarges the membership of MTC to twenty-one by adding
two new voting members, the mayor of Oakland and the mayor
of San Jose. The mayors may appoint a member of their
respective city councils as alternates.
2. Prohibits more than three members of MTC from being
residents of the same county after February 2015 (Currently
ABAG's representative to MTC is from Alameda County, but
his term expires in 2015).
3. Requires that the initial terms of the appointed
commissioners, including self-appointments, by the mayors
of the cities of Oakland and San Jose terminate in February
2015.
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 3
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose . According to the bill's author, the reasons
for giving seats to the cities of San Jose and Oakland
include the following:
They are among the largest Bay Area cities in
terms of both population and households.
They will each play a leading role in the Bay
Area's efforts to comply with the state's greenhouse
gas reduction requirements.
Their combined total of 1.2 million workers
represents one-third of the entire Bay Area workforce.
Oakland and San Jose have a combined total of
183,000 daily transit commuters, which represents more
than 50 percent of all transit commuters in the Bay
area as a whole.
The bill's sponsor, MTC, argues that a change in the
representation structure is needed to implement the
requirements of SB 375 (Steinberg), which seek to focus new
development within the existing urban core and near public
transit stations. To achieve this goal, MTC writes that "a
strong partnership with the cities of San Francisco,
Oakland, and San Jose is essential." In light of this
need, MTC argues, "The time has come to modify the
Commission's structure so that it ensures representation
for the Bay area's three largest cities."
1. Background . MTC's existing arrangement for selecting
board members seeks to balance population and
jurisdictional representation between the five large
counties and the four small ones. To meet this goal, the
larger counties, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara are assigned two members, one representing the
board of supervisors and one selected by a city selection
committee. San Francisco presented a unique problem
because it was a consolidated city and county, it was the
region's third most populous county, and the most populous
city in the region. To resolve the issue of representation
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 4
for San Francisco, both the mayor and the board of
supervisors were each given appointments. In remaining
smaller counties-Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma- to
balance city and county representation, the cities
nominated slates for an appointment to MTC and the boards
of supervisors selected an appointee from the slate. The
representation scheme balanced large and small
jurisdictions.
2. Regional population changes . During the last four
decades, the Bay Area's population has grown by 61.2
percent. The greatest growth is seen in Solano and Sonoma
counties, which have grown by 151.7 percent and 140.8
percent, respectively. The City and County of San
Francisco experienced the least growth of any county with a
19.6 percent increase in population. Of the remaining
larger urban counties, Contra Costa experienced a 92.2
percent increase in population, followed by Santa Clara at
76.6 percent, Alameda at 46.7 percent, and San Mateo at
35.6 percent. In terms of absolute growth, Santa Clara
County was the leader with an increase of 816,000 persons.
Contra Costa was second with 514,666 persons. (See table 1
below)
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Table 1 |
| Population Change for Nine County San Francisco Bay Area |
| 1970-2010 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| | 1970| 1980| 1990| 2000| 2010| Change | Percent |
| | | | | | | 1970-2010 |Change |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Alameda | 1,073,184| 1,105,379| 1,279,182| 1,453,173| 1,574,857| 501,673| 46.7 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Contra | 558,389| 656,380| 803,732| 956,328| 1,073,055| 514,666| 92.2 |
|Costa | | | | | | | |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Marin | 206,038| 222,568| 230,096| 248,247| 260,651| 54,613| 26.5 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Napa | 79,140| 99,199| 110,765| 124,993| 138,917| 59,777| 75.5 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|San | 715,674| 678,974| 723,959| 781,028| 856,095| 140,421| 19.6 |
|Francisco | | | | | | | |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 5
|San Mateo | 556,234| 587,329| 649,623| 710,836| 754,285| 198,051| 35.6 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Santa Clara | 1,064,714| 1,295,071| 1,497,577 | 1,693,040| 1,880,876| 816,162| 76.6 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Solano | 169,941| 235,203| 349,421| 397,187| 427,837| 257,896|151.7 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Sonoma | 204,885| 299,681| 388,222| 461,464| 493,285| 288,400|140.8 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Total | 4,628,199| 5,179,784| 6,032,577| 6,826,296| 7,459,858| 2,831,659| 61.2 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as there have been differing growth rates among the
counties, the changes in each counties share of the
regional population has varied. For example, Contra Costa
County's relative share of regional population in 1970 was
12.1 percent; by 2010 it was 14.4 percent. Santa Clara
County's share of the regional population increased from
23.0 percent to 25.2 percent. Alameda, San Francisco, and
San Mateo counties all saw their shares of regional
population decline. The most dramatic decline in the
region was experienced by San Francisco, which went from a
regional share of 15.5 percent in 1970 to 11.5 percent in
2010. Over the four decades, the region's population has
shifted away from San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and
Marin counties to the remaining five counties, especially
Santa Clara and Contra Costa. (See Table 2 below)
This bill's objective is to add representation for the
cities of San Jose and Oakland. San Jose's population is
about 50 percent of Santa Clara County's population.
Oakland has about 25 percent of Alameda County's
population. In 1970, San Jose's share of the county's
population was 42 percent. In contrast, Oakland's 1970
share of Alameda County's population was 34 percent. San
Jose's share of county population increased by eight
percentage points. Oakland's share of Alameda County's
population decreased by nine percentage points. (See Table
3 below)
----------------------
| Table 2 |
| Each Counties' Share |
| of Regional |
| Population |
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 6
----------------------
|-------+-------+------|
| | 1970 | 2010 |
|-------+-------+------|
| | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|Alameda| 23.19%|21.11%|
| | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|Contra | 12.06%|14.38%|
|Costa | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|Marin | 4.45%| 3.64%|
|-------+-------+------|
|Napa | 1.71%| 1.86%|
|-------+-------+------|
|San | 15.46%|11.48%|
|Francis| | |
|co | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|San | 12.02%|10.11%|
|Mateo | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|Santa | 23.00%|25.21%|
|Clara | | |
|-------+-------+------|
|Solano | 3.67%| 5.74%|
|-------+-------+------|
|Sonoma | 4.43%|6.61% |
| | | |
----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Table 3 |
| Population Change for the Cities of Oakland, San Francisco and |
| San Jose |
| 1970-2010 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Cities | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | Percent |
| | | | | | | Change |
| | | | | | | 1970-2010 |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Oakland |361,561 |339,337 |372,242 |399,484 |390,724 | 8.1 |
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 7
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|San Francisco |715,674 |678,974 |723,959 |781,028 |856,095 | 19.6 |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|San Jose |445,779 |626,442 |782,225 |894,943 |958,789 | |
| | | | | | |115.1 |
| | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. MTC and the management of regional transportation
planning . Among MTC's important activities is to manage
the flow of revenue among the Bay Area's cities, counties,
and transit agencies. Through the regional planning
process MTC establishes policies and priorities that govern
the expenditure of transportation funds. MTC also
coordinates funding for transportation project between
local governments, transit districts, and the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Because of MTC's success at
managing the linkage between transportation planning,
policy making, and funding, it is recognized as among the
most effective regional planning agencies in the country
and the benchmark of excellence among similar agencies.
MTC achieved this reputation through collaboration and
consensus building. Contentious votes are a rarity at its
meetings.
After legislation to merge the two agencies failed in 2002,
MTC and ABAG established a process to improve inter-agency
collaboration with the formation of the Joint Policy
Committee (JPC). According to a report of a joint MTC-ABAG
task force, the purpose of the JPC is "to advance
integrated regional planning and. . .to comment on and
review any substantial regional plans or strategies that
are devised by either agency. . ." In 2004, SB 849
(Torlakson), Chapter 849, Statutes of 2004, added the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to the JPC,
required that every county in the region be represented on
the JPC, and required it to review and comment on the
regional transportation plan, the ABAG housing element, and
the BAAQMD ozone attainment and its clean air plans. AB
2094 (DeSlaunier), Chapter 442, Statutes of 2008, added the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
to the JPC.
With the enactment of SB 375 and its requirements placing a
greater emphasis on coordinating land use and
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 8
transportation investment decisions, MTC is attempting
through this bill to strengthen the decision-making process
for implementing SB 375 and its goal of better land use
planning to reduce automobile travel. To this end, MTC, in
recent years has become ABAG's major funder. In addition,
JPC's member agencies are using the required update of the
regional transportation plan to produce an integrated
regional transportation and land use plan that encompasses
the goals of SB 375.
4. Alternatives to securing representation on MTC . Several
alternatives exist as to how to structure representation on
MTC. For example, a letter jointly signed by the retired
former chairs of this committee, Senator John Foran, the
author of MTC's enabling legislation in 1970, and Quentin
Kopp, a former chair of MTC, suggests that transit
utilization might be a measurement for determining
representation. They write:
The idea that San Francisco, which provides 700,000
of public transportation trips per day should have
its voting power on MTC diluted, to confer more
representation on San Jose and Oakland whose urban
core and transit trips pale by comparison to San
Francisco is contrary to good legislative sense.
The day time population of San Francisco swells by
more than the entire population of Oakland. . .
Federal law governing representation on MPO's allows the
placement of transit districts on regional governing
boards. Alternatively, MTC could consider employing
weighted voting as San Diego Association of Governments
does. A weighted vote is triggered when a group of cities
representing a specified proportion of the region's total
population request the vote. The smaller jurisdictions are
guaranteed a minimum number of votes, with the remaining
votes being distributed on the basis of population. In
Table 2, the column titled 2010 would represent each
county's share of the votes. For example, Santa Clara
County would have about twenty-five percent of the votes
while San Francisco County would have eleven percent of the
votes. Contra Costa County would have fourteen percent,
and Solano would be entitled to six percent of the votes.
Another alternative would be for MTC to adjust membership
on the governing board based entirely on proportional
representation. These are all alternatives that MTC may
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 9
wish to consider.
5. Related legislation . SB 878 (DeSaulnier) would engage
the JPC in addressing the new regional issues resulting
from the requirements to limit greenhouse gases, the need
to create a regional economic development strategy, and the
land use and transportation policies of SB 375.
Specifically, SB 878 requires the JPC to develop a report
on the methods and strategies governing SB 375's
sustainable communities' strategies, improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of policy setting and
managerial coordination among the membership of the JPC,
and enhancing the engagement of the public in regional
decision-making. In addition, SB 878 requires strategies
to address a regional response to climate change and
economic development needs. SB 878 requires that the JPC
must submit its reports to the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee and to the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 71-5
Appr: 16-1
L Gov: 9-0
Trans: 13-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 29, 2011)
SUPPORT: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (sponsor)
Alameda County Transportation Commission
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
City of Oakland
City of San Jose
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
East Bay Economic Development Alliance
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Visitors
Bureau
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
AB 57 (BEALL) Page 10
OPPOSED: San Francisco County Transportation Commission
State Senator John F. Foran (Ret)
State Senator Quentin Kopp (Ret)