Department of Veterans Affairs department of Agriculture Programs that identified Food Insecurity among nearly 20 million veterans and provide nutrition assistance to those in need. Specifically todays hearing will focus on how veterans access to nutritional resources and how recent policy changes impact of thimpacted the availaf resources and how congress can more effectively support public and nonpublic agencies that seek to end veteran hunger, so critically important. This continues the subcommittees efforts to the economic factors that contribute to the veteran suicide our subcommittee works and a bipartisan way to strengthen education and job Training Programs for veterans can get a good job but unfortunately that isnt always the outcome the joblessness result wil. When that occurs, nutrition resources should and must be made readily available. However, the committee is concerned about decisions are being made regarding the resources without really considering the impact on vetera
Good morning, everyone and welcome back as we returned from the Holiday Season to continue the work i of the Economic Opportunity subcommittee. Witwithout objection the chair s authorized to call for a recess at any time. I am hopeful we can shed some light on a very important issue for veterans around the country this hearing will examine the department of Veterans Affairs department of Agriculture Programs that identified Food Insecurity among nearly 20 million veterans and provide nutrition assistance to those in need. Specifically todays hearing will focus on how veterans access to nutritional resources and how recent policy changes impact of thimpacted the availaf resources and how congress can more effectively support public and nonpublic agencies that seek to end veteran hunger, so critically important. This continues the subcommittees efforts to the economic factors that contribute to the veteran suicide our subcommittee works and a bipartisan way to strengthen education and jo
And we have additional staff here if needed. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I dont have any speaker cards. Okay. With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards. I missed the first part of the presentation, are these only for a rated structures under sequa . Ceqa . We are thinking these would apply to nonHistoric Resources. They would not apply to article 10 or 11. They could apply to individual resources that are a rated resources, but they would not meet the secretary of the interior standards. We would see them as causing an impact. I think where i am going is i would have loved to have this on 450 farrell when we did the e. I. R. And it would be the facade alternative. When we looked at the mitigation and all of that, we had some liver age with the developer leverage with the developer. This is really, really good. I seen it applying to some arated structures. I am happy to see it. The question i have is if it is a Housing Project and we ask for this, will
Lastly, on the unauthorized units, weve been a big champion of these. Theres an estimate of 20 to 50,000. If you knew how many you would have to remove them. They exist in the city but they are an important housing resource. Most are rent controlled. A lot of our most vulnerable renters live in these units. We have two objectives around this. One is retain as many units as we can, protect them from merger, from demolition and conversion. The other is protect tenants rights as best we can. We think we recommended both of those things. Every unit will have a broad path to legalization. So if you can feasibly legalize, you will be allowed under the planning code to legalize it. Thats the first thing. The other thing is by removing these loopholes, the areas that dont allow you to approve the merger under section 317, so thats the no fault evictions and the more than one unit, you then as a commissioner will have to approve every unit removal, every unit merger, et cetera. That gives you t
Commission. Discussion around the faux saws and this is going back to 2015. The discussion of the retention related to the Historic Properties and how it had been coming out in the city and the sort of product that had been arriving through this process. In 2016, further discussion of examples. In 2017 reviewing draft policy staff had begun to develop. What was interesting was the shift in thinking from this as preservation. There is conversation if these were preservation projects. At that point the commission directed staff to begin describing this as a Design Review process rather than preservation. This is complex within the Preservation Community. Early this year we presented a new take on this which was much more around Design Review. There was a joint Commission Hearing between planning and Historic Preservation to discuss how it might work and direct projects in the future. This came out of preservation conversation and into Design Review. That is when you saw it last. We then