The independent and non-partisan counsel’s office reviewed  legislation governing how the commission, which also operates as the Bay Area Toll Authority, can spend that money, and said: ”We think that the purchase and operation of a regional governance co-location facility is not among the purposes that BATA or MTC is authorized to engage in or promote.”

The opinion says the Main Street building “substantially exceeds the administration office needs related to toll bridge project and program administration.” It says the Legislature could pass a law requiring the commission to rescind the purchase.

“I think they should sell the building because what they did was illegal,” said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, a former member of the commission who requested the review and has opposed the building purchase.

A state audit, requested by a legislative audit committee at DeSaulnier’s suggestion, is pending, and expected in June.

MTC officials declined to comment, saying only that they received the 10-page opinion late and were carefully reviewing its conclusions.

The commission voted in  October to buy the 1942 building for $93 million, and to spend up to $74 million in improvements. The Bay Area Air Quality Management  District and Bay Conservation and Development Commission have stated their intentions to move into the shared building.

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/07/mtc-real-estate-deal-questioned/

The commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning and financing agency, voted 8-6, with two members absent, to buy 390 Main St. for $93 million and spend up to $74 million on improvements to the 1942 building. The deal is expected to close today or Friday.

The almost 500,000-square-foot building, constructed as a tank assembly plant and most recently used as a postal center, will be overhauled and turned into a regional government headquarters. In addition to housing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and its bridge operations division, the Bay Area Toll Authority, the structure will be home to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and, possibly, the Association of Bay Area Governments. Part of the building will be leased out.

“It will serve as an excellent regional governance center,” said Jack Broadbent, executive director of the air board.

Joyce Roy, a transit activist who opposed the move, agreed that putting regional agencies in the same building “is going to speed up the process of getting a true metropolitan planning agency in the Bay Area.”

The decision came after hours of testimony and four meetings at which Oakland officials, including Mayor Jean Quan, argued that the commission should keep its offices in their city, preferably by building a glass high-rise downtown. Other critics said the half-mile distance from BART was too much.

The commission first voted to buy the building in July – for $105 million – calling it the best option for a new home that its real estate consultants could find. The decision angered Oakland officials and captured the attention of East Bay legislators who questioned whether it is legal to use bridge toll revenues to buy real estate, some of which will be leased out.

Six weeks later, after state legislators backed a request by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, for an audit of the legality of using toll money, the commission backed off the decision and appointed a committee to investigate the deal further. Last month, at the committee’s recommendation, the commission voted to bid on the building, then back on the open market. Last week, the bid was accepted. After a 45-minute closed-session meeting Wednesday, the commission voted to buy the property.

Rehabilitation of the building, which will be almost completely gutted then modernized, is expected to take about a year.

Voting to buy the building were Commissioners David Campos, Bill Dodd, Steve Kinsey, Jake Mackenzie, Kevin Mullin, Jim Spering, Scott Wiener and Adrienne Tissier. Opposed were Tom Bates, Dave Cortese, Federal Glover, Mark Green, Scott Haggerty and Amy Rein Worth.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C – 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/BA241LGVHF.DTL

Blanca Torres
Reporter – San Francisco Business Times

Email

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Toll Authority plan to meet Wednesday morning to re-affirm their decision to move their offices to San Francisco.

The commission and toll authority along with the Air Quality Management District agreed on July 17 to buy a 455,000-square foot building at 390 Main St. in San Francisco for a joint regional headquarters after a request for proposals yielding several five in San Francisco and Oakland.

The July decision was later rescinded on Aug. 17 after a huge outpouring of opposition from Oakland residents, business leaders and local officials.

The MTC board agreed to form a six-person subcommittee to review the 390 Main Street decision and report their findings within 60 days.

The opponents argued that 390 Main is not convenient or easy to reach for disabled people and would require significant and costly upgrades.

Oakland supporters also argued that the agencies would have a greater positive economic impact by staying in Oakland verses moving to San Francisco.

The allotted time has not lapsed, but the board is ready to move forward to make a deal for 390 Main. According to an agenda report for the meeting, the subcommittee determined that the selection process was “thorough, fair, and transparent,” and that a purchase price in the range of $100 million “appears reasonable” for the building, which was formerly used by the U.S. Postal Service 
 

U.S. Postal Service
Latest from The Business Journals
Postal workers protest proposed cutsPostal workers rally in WichitaPostal workers protest outside Hartzler’s office

Follow this company




and is more than twice the size the regional agencies need for a joint headquarters.

The agencies plan to sublease space in the building with initial estimates that show the agencies could net $40 million during a 30-year period.

Meanwhile, the Association of Bay Area Governments has no plans to join the other agencies in their move and will remain at their Oakland headquarters in a building it co-owns with MTC and BART.

Blanca Torres covers East Bay real estate for the San Francisco Business Times.

See all your followed company news on your personalized dashboard.

To access the full benefits of bizWatch and receive a weekly email with aggregated news on all the companies you are following, please provide your email address below.

You must have a bizjournals account to follow a company.
Please Log In or Register.

Article source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2011/09/mtc-reaffirms-move-to-san-francisco.html

The commission, the Bay Area’s transportation planning and financing agency, voted 12-2 on July 27 to buy the almost 500,000-square-foot building for $105.7 million and spend up to $74 million on improvements. The commission, which has outgrown the headquarters building it shares with the Association of Bay Area Governments in Oakland, planned to relocate across the bay and move in with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

But Oakland officials, who want the regional agencies to relocate in a yet-to-be-built 20-story glass tower in downtown Oakland, complained that the commission violated state open meeting laws by allowing members of ABAG to attend their closed session meeting to ask questions. The commission disagreed with that accusation but decided to hold a new meeting Wednesday to rescind the vote and reconsider the issue.

But after listening to almost three hours of criticism, questions and pleas to stay in Oakland, the commission decided unanimously to put off a decision on buying 390 Main St.

San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener said the vote was not a decision to reject the San Francisco site but to take the needed time to answer questions ranging from whether it’s appropriate to use bridge toll revenue to buy real estate, some of which will be leased commercially, to whether the location is seismically safe and close enough to public transportation.

“It should not be interpreted that … we made a grievous error,” he said. “We simply want to get the answers to some questions and avoid a lawsuit by Oakland, which has been pretty aggressive.”

Oakland officials, in addition to challenging the legality of the commission’s July vote, argued that the proposed building at 1100 Broadway would sit atop a BART station while the San Francisco building would be about a half mile away from one. They also argued that the Oakland building would be cheaper to build and operate if compared fairly.

Commissioners said the three dozen speakers raised many questions that deserved further research. A six-member committee will take up to 60 days to do that research and bring the issue back to the full commission for a decision.

“I’m disappointed in the political heat this has generated,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, the commission chairwoman. “But it has raised some important issues we need to address.”

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C – 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/17/BA4H1KOJTM.DTL