BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           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)