£u6£c LiBrary, "Documents <Dept. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FR Qcrnj %gtfi SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY 3 1223 i06s25u5a84k90u OF SUPERVISORS BUDGETANALYST 1390MARKETSTREET, SUITE 1025 SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE(415)554-7642 February6, 1992 3 CLOSED the Board FEB 7 i STACKS SAf -ZO PUOMC » » -jRARY Small Business Development Corporation's (SBDC) ig Mission Bay inciscoPublicLibrary the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1992, the the following information on the Small Business SBDC) findings, provided by Mr. Dehnert Queen, WC4SOOPUBLICLIBRARY ms to be finally acted on by the Board ofSupervisors 1992. RENCE BOOK IO of the Small Business Development Corporation takenfrom the Library ion Bay Project, previously approved by the Board of ;ion Bay Development Agreement in February, 1991, which have not been addressed. Mr. Queen asserts he costs ofthe Embarcadero Roadway project, MUNI of waterfront land from marine and ocean use as ission Bay Project. Mr. Queen further claims that ;e costs should be included because, without the Mission Bay project, there ^ld be no need for these additional projects to occur. it reviewing Mr. Queen's documents, the Budget Analyst does not find any son to include these costs as part ofthe overall Mission Bay Project costs. The )arcadero Roadway and MUNI Metro Extension projects are projects that lid have occurred independent ofthe Mission Bay project, and therefore should be included as part of the development costs for Mission Bay. Although the [NI Metro Extension project does anticipate increased ridership when the [sion Bay development project is built out, the MUNI Metro Extension would 'ide fU~ ^"^y with the potential for further corridor expansion and is not )Osj y\ f°r the Mission Bay project. In addition, the City would not lose terfj *J from marine and ocean use. As noted in the Budget Analyst's )rtregarding the Port Land Transfer Agreement (Files 255-91-1, 255-91-2, 255- REF 352.439 Sa52a Public Library, "Documents (Dept. CITY AND COUNTY (fSSjl OF SAN FRA^fSc^" G^TU 1\Otfl SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY 3 1223 k062u55a8k49u0 OF SUPERVISORS BUDGETANALYST 1390MARKETSTREET, SUITE 1025 SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94102 • TELEPHONE(415)554-7642 February6, 1992 DQCUMgfKfs PSPI* " TO: Each Member ofthe Board ' ' ' SAN "20 FROM: ^Budget Analyst POCMC "?-RARY SUBJECT: Analysis of the Small Business Development Corporation's (SBDC) findings regarding Mission Bay Pursuant to a request from the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1992, the Budget Analyst is providing the following information on the Small Business Development Corporation's (SBDC) findings, provided by Mr. Dehnert Queen, regarding the Mission Bay items to be finally acted on by the Board ofSupervisors atits meetingofFebruary 10, 1992. Mr. Queen, Founder and CEO of the Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC), claims that the Mission Bay Project, previously approved by the Board of Supervisors through the Mission Bay Development Agreement in February, 1991, contains several related costs which have not been addressed. Mr. Queen asserts that the City should include the costs ofthe Embarcadero Roadway project, MUNI Metro Extensions, and loss of waterfront land from marine and ocean use as development costs for the Mission Bay Project. Mr. Queen further claims that these costs should be included because, without the Mission Bay project, there would be no need for these additional projects to occur. After reviewing Mr. Queen's documents, the Budget Analyst does not find any reason to include these costs as part ofthe overall Mission Bay Project costs. The Embarcadero Roadway and MUNI Metro Extension projects are projects that would have occurred independent ofthe Mission Bay project, and therefore should not be included as part of the development costs for Mission Bay. Although the MUNI Metro Extension project does anticipate increased ridership when the Mission Bay development project is built out, the MUNI Metro Extension would provide the City with the potential for further corridor expansion and is not proposed solely for the Mission Bay project. In addition, the City would not lose waterfront land from marine and ocean use. As noted in the Budget Analyst's reportregarding the Port Land TransferAgreement (Files 255-91-1, 255-91-2, 255- Memo to Each Member ofthe Board ofSupervisors February6, 1992 91-4, 255-91-6), although the Port would transfer approximately 15 acres of property to Catellus for use as market rate and affordable housing, the Port would receive approximately 39.3 acres of land from Catellus for use as container storage, which would serve a marine and ocean use. According to the Real Estate Department, this land transfer from Catellus will provide the City with a greater value ofland ofapproximately $0.4 million to $7.8 million. In summary, based on our review ofdocuments provided by and discussions with Mr. Queen, the Budget Analyst does not concur with conclusions that the City should include the costs of the Embarcadero Roadway project and MUNI Metro Extensions as development costs for the Mission Bay project. In addition, the City would not lose waterfront land, and the City will be provided with a greater value ofland from Catellus. Harvey M. Rose President Ward Supervisor Achtenberg Supervisor Alioto SupervisorBritt Supervisor Gonzalez Supervisor Hallinan Supervisor Hsieh Supervisor Kennedy Supervisor Maher Supervisor Migden Supervisor Shelley Clerk ofthe Board ChiefAdministrative Officer Controller Kent Sims Adelle Foley Ted Lakey 3 1223 06255 8490 BOARDOFSUPERVISORS BUDGETANALYST -2- w. w@m m* H Wle Bin atfw ill mimmW m 1 :V--\:^- H 11