With the red hair to my right sitting behind the commissioner reported, it is going to be further delayed, and now i actually am going to point a finger because i said to this reporter when he called, and i said the project management oversight reports that the central subway was going to be even later and that the whole construct that it was still on budget, behind schedule but on budget, may no longer be true, either, and i said the truth, which was, alberto from the sfmta stance in front of all 11 of us and repeatedly says it will be in Revenue Service on december 31st of 2019, and we will not be overbudget. It turns out, it is time to rip the bandaid off of that lie, but the reason i am saying that is because the businesses on the 1,900 blocks on stockton street will be, excuse my french, screwed. We have known about that for years. And then we go headlong into, sorry for getting this off my chest, but then we go headlong into venice be rt, knowing that all of the lessons of the central subway, these are major projects, im not questioning their needs or their eventual benefit, and there you have on van ness, 572 days, it just made up the number, was somewhere around there, behind schedule. We have already depressed reports of businesses going out of business. I get calls and we will hear from a woman today who runs a gym on van this avenue who has a landlord who i called yesterday, who has no understanding because he doesnt live in San Francisco , that the value of his property has plummeted and he still thinks that it is worth only 4 a square foot, it is worth probably half that. This woman is at her wits and as she should be. I appreciate all this, what it is a minuscule effort. It was a gratuity. It was like a reparations payment of a fraction of what they have suffered at our behest we are the decisionmakers who decided to build this 1. 6 billiondollar project, which is in a normas amount of money, by the way, if it were not for my ten colleagues, public works not like the idea of giving them money, sfmta did not like the idea of giving them money, the last mayor did not like the idea of giving them money. Their income has been cut in half. I was going to go to dinner right across the avenue from supervisor stefani. It was boarded up and shut. That is what is happening. At any right, i appreciate this. I want to get the money out the door. I dont want to hear this again in december, and in january, and i dont want it to be a remarkably complicated process. We will hear from her in a minute. If she has to go hire somebody in order to fill out the forms and get a c. P. A. And a lawyer to fill all the stuff out, then it is worthless. We have a lot of crises, but this is a reallife crisis. It is happening all the way through four supervisorial districts in realtime. I want to cry but the person that got killed by a tesla, want to be i want to cry about all these businesses that are getting forced out by us. With that, thank you. That was really cathartic. I didnt know if you were going to stop. [laughter] thank you, chair. I just have to say, is a person that was really pushing for this during our conversation, this has been exceedingly frustrating is oewd in the house . Please come forward. I think the simplest thing to do is have the money work order and have oewd manage this. This is not an sfmta program. This is not in your wheelhouse. This is probably why it has taken so long for you to get to where you are and icy frustration on all my colleagues faces. We have a project coming up in a year that will be a Significant Impact on mission street. It is the improvement project, but there will be a lot of construction and a lot of delays to one of the parts of town that already has a one of the highest rates of vacancy. All of these businesses are already under assault. 500,000 is maybe half a months rent for some of these places. I think it is more on the magnitude of ten to 25,000dollar grant. I think the majority of the money should be grants. I dont think a Revolving Loan, asking anyone to take out a loan when they are already, the businesses on the brink of shutting down as is pointed out in some of these instances, i think there needs to be anisa be completely simplified, it should be in the office of economic and Workforce Development, we should be hearing directly from you. This is something that ultimately should go to the sfmta. This should just be quickly proposed, simplified, grants, out the door, help these businesses survive and anticipate where the remaining schedule of construction is. I gave my stuff to oewd. I see them somewhat reflected in here. I think 5,000 is not enough. Should be on the magnitude of up to 25,000 grant. I dont think loans is the appropriate strategy to take. I dont think this is something that will be revolving. This is about getting them money out, getting it out quickly, and helping these businesses survive that is it. I have actually tried having a discussion about robust no interest loans and about whether or not that would be helpful to them. I have generally gotten a yes to that. And the reason im saying that is because if we did have a robust Revolving Loan fund that can be used for years and projects ahead, in the business of microlensing, those people actually pay that money back. If we can help them survive for a period of time, get that money back, and use it again, that may be the right course, but i think we should have a conversation about that. Commissioner brown . I just want some clarification. I know theres 5 million in the pot, but theres actually two kinds of projects. We have the m. T. A. Project which is gary and venice, and we have the d. P. W. Projects which is paid cash. I think it was in her sunset, those projects, so are you telling me and i thank you recommended Cash Payments to the m. T. A. , which would be gary and that this then nass, is that correct . Yes, just to be the 5 million of the fund came from the general fund set aside that goes to the m. T. A. For Pedestrian Safety projects or four fleet replacement or all the things related to that. We have significant projects that are going on right now that are major transit projects in San Francisco including then nass, terra bill, central simply , so course what we are hearing from this commission is those are major knees. We need to get the money out for those people. However, the mtas a partner on a number of other projects in San Francisco where we are heading pedestrian bowls or the element of our project is not that impact will overall when youre looking at m. T. A. Specific improvements. Is part of a larger citywide project to replace sewer or water line and doing repaving. The idea of doing Revolving Loan fund using m. T. A. Budgeted fund is recognizing we are a partner in a significant number of projects in San Francisco and we have equal responsibility being part of the city family to contribute to that. Both for Public Policy reasons. , was secondarily, also correct to have a fund where we are a partner with other projects, and those funds can be made available to those businesses on these corridors. I guess my question is, because im thinking of haightashbury, it is summertime , this is where they make most of their money because they are a tourist area, and i have porsche to try to make sure that the sidewalks are not ripped up until after labor day, but i have also heard from merchants that a lot of them stores have been close during the time when sidewalks are ripped up because they wont be able to afford to have staff come in, and they wont be able to afford it without that kind of business. So we are looking at a Revolving Loan, but i guess my worry is that what if people dont make it through and then they are supposed to pay a loan back . I am really worried about that. I know that the merchants have said to me, how long do i have to pay it back, what what if i dont survive this construction project . There are all of these questions im merchants are asking. To take your name and sign, you are responsible. I worried that i would be out of business and two years. I would be stuck with this loan. It would be an insult to injury with the situation. I just need to know what these terms are on the loan. Thank you. I think terms on the loan are yet to be determined. There is a suggestion to connect with merchants so they can provide them guidance and feedback on the terms. I think what wait we are looking at right now is the present interest. I think theres a lot of flexibility in terms of how we work with the underwriters to make that work. I think what the intention is to make sure the business stays afloat during the construction period and we can support them throughout the process. Every time a grant is given or provided, or a loan in this case , the tenants are provided with working with pro bono consultants so they can implement their Business Plan or improve their Business Plan during that time as well. What if they close . What if they hang on for that year or year and a half and then they close because they just dont have the business . Are they going to be on the hook for that loan . In short, we would work with them to figure out a payment a payment plan and what that can look like. This is building upon our current Revolving Loan fund, which there is a 96 repayment rate from our current Small Businesses. So can we look at, if they dont seem business that they dont have to pay that loan back if this construction project drives them out of business, can we really look at that there is a forgivable loan . We can explore that option, yes. And one other question, so you were doing the finishing touches on the inner sunset, the construction project. There are still some things that are being worked on. With those merchants have suffered for two years and they werent offered this, and they are still suffering from, you know, the project not being completed. Will they still be eligible, even though they are at the end of the project . That is a good question. Again, as chair peskin mentioned , were doing catch up on all of this. I think what were trying to do is set up a program with clear criteria related to at least in the grant side, the sfmta related projects. If we again were a factor within a certain window, yes, it should be open to them based on the impacts of that project, but then again, 24 month project, were talking about the most significant ones in the city, but again, if the criteria is met, yes, absolutely, they would be able to access these. Thank you. Commissioner walton . Thank you, chair peskin. I just want to start off by talking a little bit about this because, in some cases, we as a city are putting people out of business by no fault of their own because of the duration of construction, the type of construction, what is happening in construction. Some people are losing their business. Not because they didnt have clientele, not because their business model, would you keep going back to with technical assistance. We had a conversation in this chamber last meeting, very specific about coming up with a strategy to give people financial support, to mitigate the impacts of when they are going into construction. Even when we are having constructions about this dont think i can speak for least a couple of my colleagues, i dont think our intent was to have to hire a whole bunch of new stuff to come over they strategy to give out money. I know sfmta and i have and they it is not a primary function of sfmta. It is just real frustrating and were not talking about a whole lot of money today. Of course, we will probably work on strategies to come up with more resources to mitigate impacts because we are putting people out of businesses a city. We have to care about that. That is very important that we change that. And so, i also know that we were not envisioning loans. How are we going to be responsible for putting somebody out of business and then asked them to pay back money loss of revenue that they did not cause . That is dysfunctional, is arbitrary to what we were talking about, and the whole purpose of putting these resources i dont know if people felt that we had this conversation in a chamber and we would just letting out hot air and letting out steam under going to come back with something that doesnt actually address what we want to do week later, how long are we going to play this back and forth . These are real businesses that are suffering at the hands of construction here in San Francisco. There has to be a way we dont have to hire a whole bunch of new people, to put something in place that says, we can do analysis on how much money they are losing with their previous revenue love prior to construction, what it will look like the forecast Everything Else without having to take six months to a year to come up with this strategy and this process to help Small Businesses that are being impacted now. The loan is not going to help a business that is suffering. So hopefully we are coming up with strategies. This is what were going to do to help you survive in San Francisco where youre already probably playing paying extremely high rent, youre already having to deal with m. C. O. , minimum wage, everything we fight for and are excited about, but we need to help Small Businesses be successful. And the construction impacts are very real. Everybody in this room knows that. We cant can keep coming back with strategies that are going to make it worse and actually not help. I dont know what we are doing in these rooms to where we think that makes sense. It is unfair to do that, it is unfair to take up time in this chamber to go in circles. When i know how intelligent all of you are, i know how well you all work in terms of coming up with strategies and solutions. Lets just do it, do something concrete and tangible to support our businesses to where our next conversation is how we are excited about how we saved a business or how we kept someone from going out of business, and we did that in good faith and making sure that we were really responsible about responding to the needs of some of our Small Businesses. I hope we can come up with the strategy that does that. I dont know if you want to respond to that. My one response is, i can make a guarantee that it will be a complete work order to the office of economic and Workforce Development. I think the question for Public Policy is it is 5 million to build a onetime five milliondollar chunk, and how can we help as many businesses as we can in an attempt to make it sustainable for all the projects we know we will have in San Francisco. As we are grappling by the way, that is the tradeoff between direct grants and no interest, unsecured loans, but before we have that discussion, colleagues, we are the body in this incarnation as the t. A. That is the Funding Agency that funds vileness prt, gary street purity, central subway, you name it. All of those funds flow through this agency. We dont have to have this 5 milliondollar construct. The reason agencies have historically fought mitigation payments to impacted business is because it increases project costs. It is not that earth shattering a concept. If you want to take care of your businesses, it is going to reduce the amount of money you have for building rail or building prt or whatever it is. So maybe it should be the policy of this body that we dont approve projects that do not have robust mitigation payment programs for impacted businesses , and maybe we should say, right now, we are not going to fund anymore gary bart until the budget is revised to take care of every impacted business. We are not going to fund better Market Street until phase one is absolutely taken care of a relative to impacted businesses because, lets be real, they are going to be extremely impacted. Maybe that should be then if we want to do that, projects will become more expensive, but we wont have to worry about loans versus grants, colleagues. Otherwise, we are going to need to build a fund and recycle those monies. Im just throwing out the pol Public Policy argument. I know you want to respond. Supervisor peskin, i wasnt im sorry. Commissioner walton, you still have the floor. I just want to say that when there is a problem, the solution has to actually address the problem. To your points, and this is not the time to go back and forth about it, but the solution has to address the problem. Loaning money to people who are losing money and going out of business does not address the mitigation does not address the problem. It just doesnt work. If you have nothing, and you are losing money, and you take out a loan, that is not beneficial to your business and it does not make an impact due to construction. So theres probably a longer conversation to have. Obviously, some of us are going to be fighting more for Additional Resources to mitigate this in the long term, but the reality is, when you have a problem, the solution has to address that problem. A loan does not address that problem. In fact, it makes it worse, at a higher percentage of cases when youre going out of business. I totally understand what youre saying. Commissioner yee . I probably could just pull a recording of what i said five years ago in a similar discussion. There are other constructions going on around the city and impacting businesses. At the time it was oewd. At the time, i said what we need is to provide money for these people that are losing money to stay afloat, that it is not all Rocket Scientist to figure out how much they are losing. They have gross receipts, they have profit margins, is easily calculated. It is not that hard. I was never in favour of loans because of exactly what commissioner walton said. What are you going to do . Pay back the loan when you are out of business . And it is. I mentioned, at the time, that if we are going to do this, yes, this budget is into our projects yes, it will increase the costs of the projects, but at the same time, these projec