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)