Of supervisors, pending two more votes. Once that is completed it will be on the ballot in november. This is really incredible given in 2015, when we had our last housing bond, it was 310 million dollars. The amount has doubled, thats really exciting. We have also talked about putting Affordable Housing in the citys capital plans. We are really planning for Affordable Housing needs as part of our overall city needs and that we are accounting for that every 45 years. When we have expanded the bond proceeds that we are in q4 coming back for the voters to fund the Affordable Housing needs that we have two meet what our residents need. The bond will Fund Acquisition construction improvement, rehabilitation and preservation and repair of Affordable Housing. The bond funding will further our offices work in meeting the need for the population of people that we care about, including persons with disabilities. It would do so by providing the funding that we need to build out all of our new con
[applause] thank you, don, and thank you for being an amazing partner in the effort to acquire welding his all over the safety to keep them permanently affordable. Because we know that having Affordable Housing isnt just about new construction, it is about making sure that we preserve existing Affordable Housing, whether its property that we built under the old redevelopment agency, that are in disrepair, or its buildings like this where we are able to acquire it through our small sight Acquisition Program so that we can keep it permanently affordable. Those are the things that are necessary to make sure that San Francisco is a more affordable place for all san franciscans of all income levels. We have work to do, folks. The good news is that in this particular efforts, they basically kept their eyes open and saw that this was an Incredible Opportunity for the small sight Acquisition Program. In fact, even though we are celebrating 86 units here, we know that number one, we have almost
The county department of social services sent some money over to the department of aging saying, how about you help with targeting folks 60 and over. And do an allocation base throughout the state and come up with 66,000 which comes down to us, which is to be used to target older adults, 60 and over , solely recognizing that six a 6,000, and the grand scheme, is not the largest amount of money, but we hope to at least cover some staff time to support the much larger coordinated effort. One other question, what would you see as being successful at the end of the day if we were able to in role tenth out able to unroll 10,000 . They are asking us to meet a couple of targets with these funds, and their two categories. There is an outreach category, how many people do we send this information to . That is usually calculated as an estimate. The numbers are asking us to meet on that level within the thousands. Theres also someone asking us to actually track the amount of applications which ar
They see fit. Okay. So the mandatory so those that are being hit with the mandatory withdrawal, i know theres interest theres interest about how to take those mandatory withdrawals and invest them in other other lack of a better word other investments, so i think thats something we may want to talk about. Maybe mr. Collins is in the audience, and maybe we should talk about a couple of the unions that are interested in that, in passing other information. So its something we should be thinking about because i know there is a lot of concern about it, and before we get a lot of questions and the mandatory withdrawal is the age 70. 5 restriction. Its r. M. D. , required mandatory distribution. But its not retirement, and you have to start withdrawing at 70. 5. Yeah, we can look at something about that. Im throwing it out here in Public Session because its a concern. Its on several minds, and first, i want to make sure were getting the best Accurate Information at the moment that we have, an
I want to have the staff review this, particularly with the trust to see if this is a facility they could have approved. We have a staff member who used to work there. They reviewed it and said this would be something they would see as provable for what it is worth. It is an additional step that i wanted to at least get the answer to. They have their own guidelines, wireless telecommunication facilities or guidelines. That is what they use. I have a copy of that. One other question before we hammer on dpw. The corridor. This case reminds me when i first signed up a few years ago. I think there was a pole out in the sun set and there was a view corder requested. We denied it. It was looking rat golden gate park. Far less grand than this spectacular view which i have grown up with as a native of the city. I believe we also sited a view corridor. If this isnt in the view corder what is it . It is a good street. The issue and what it did have warrant additional review because of th of the