NY City Council to Hold Oversight Hearing on LPC

From CarolynCK for the Blog

CITY COUNCIL TO HOLD AN OVERSIGHT HEARING ON LPC

It will be held on Wednesday,October 20, at 3 p.m. in the 14th floor Hearing Room of 250 Broadway, across from City Hall.



TO: The Landmark Preservation Community of New York City

FROM: The Women's City Club of New York (Arts and Landmarks
Committee)

PARTICIPATING GROUPS: Defenders of the Historic Upper East
Side, Hamilton Heights–West Harlem Community Preservation
Organization, Historic Districts Council, Landmark West!,
Morningside Heights Historic District Committee, and the
Society for the Architecture of the City.

The City Council Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting
and Maritime Uses plans to hold an oversight hearing on the
administrative functioning of the Landmarks Preservation
Commission. Concerns which have been identified by the
community are:

* Increasing LPC funding—the need for more staff

* Designation—the need for more action

* Regulation—are our landmarks really protected?

* Public input— public notice and listening to the people

Public testimony is invited and very necessary. This is an
opportunity to express the specific concerns you may have
about the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Please consider
giving testimony, submitting a written statement, or just
attending the hearing to demonstrate your interest. A crowd
in the hearing room will tell the City Council that the
Landmarks Preservation Commission is important to all New
Yorkers.

Once the hearing date and time is confirmed, we will be back
in touch. Please help by letting us know if you plan to
testify or attend the hearing by replying to this e-mail or
calling the Women’s City Club of New York.

Contacts:

Laura Ludwig & Annette Rosen, Co-Chairs, Arts and Landmarks
Committee of the Women’s City Club of New York
33 W. 60th Street, New York, NY 10023

Leave a phone message at 212-353-8070 x11 or
e-mail mpfaelzer@wccny.org



OUTLINE OF PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY COMMUNITY GROUPS IN
WORKING WITH THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

FROM: The Arts and Landmarks Committee of the Women's City
Club of New York. Laura Ludwig and Annette Rosen,
Co-Chairs. 33 West 60th Street, New York NY 10023. Phone:
212-353-8070. E-mail to mpfaelzer@wccny.org.

PARTICIPATING GROUPS: Defenders of the Historic Upper East
Side, Hamilton Heights–West Harlem Community Preservation
Organization, Historic Districts Council, Landmark West,
Morningside Heights Historic District Committee, Society
for the Architecture of the City, Women's City Club of New York

Our purpose is to make positive and constructive suggestions
as we seek to improve the procedures followed by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission. It is our goal is to
support the LPC and to improve its interaction with the
individuals and communities affected by its decision-making
process. Preservation groups would like to work in
partnership with the LPC but some have found it difficult in
recent years.

1. Choice of Chairman and Commissioners.

As Commissioners must be confirmed through action of the
City Council, we hope that the Council will confirm only
those who are conversant and in sympathy with preservation
goals.

We believe there should be an opportunity for public input
on appointments and would like to work in partnership with
the Rules, Privileges and Elections Committee of the Council
so as to ensure a comprehensive, detailed interview for each
Commissioner being considered.

2. Staffing and Funding.

While the work load of the LPC has increased, the staff and
funding have been cut. The LPC is short of staff in all
departments. The Preservation Department needs more staff
to conduct thorough investigations of the growing number of
applications it receives, and make more site visits. The
Research Department needs more staff to conduct surveys to
identify buildings worthy of designation and to produce
designation reports in a timely manner, and to perform
community outreach, as it once did. More violation officers
are needed to enforce the landmarks law. As the number of
landmarked properties continues to grow, and the amount of
investment in restoration and renovation of those properties
continues to increase, the agency's resources must be
expanded to meet the increased workload.

3. Public Participation in the LPC Process.

The process by which the LPC determines whether or not to
hold a designation hearing is a mystery. We would like the
designation process of the LPC to become more transparent,
as transparency is the cornerstone of good government.

When reviewing Certificate of Appropriateness applications,
the LPC sees the applicant as a partner or client and
therefore gives less consideration to the views of owners of
neighboring properties and the views of community groups.
In some cases, negotiations with applicants seem to have
reached a very advanced stage before the public hearing,
without input from the public. The LPC does not seem to
consider itself accountable to communities.

Certificates of Appropriateness items that received a public
hearing, but were not approved, are often brought back in
radically altered form, to be reviewed not at a public
hearing, but at a public meeting, where public testimony is
not taken and little public notice is provided. The LPC's
criteria for scheduling items for a public meeting versus a
public hearing are obscure, especially in cases where the
application has changed substantially (e.g., a new design, a
different architect. Examples: 322 Hicks Street,
Allen-Stevenson School.)

A vast and growing majority of applications to alter
landmarks are approved at staff level under the rules. We
believe that concerned neighbors and the public should have
access to information about existing and pending staff level
permits. Certificate of Appropriateness decisions are
already being made available on line through the Center for
New York City Law. The technology is there, and the
available materials should be expanded.

Plans and materials pertaining to applications scheduled for
public hearings are made available for review by interested
member of the public, on the Friday prior to the Tuesday
public hearings, and this is very helpful; however, the
materials are often incomplete. The public is not allowed
to speak to staff members who are directly knowledgeable
about the applications and can answer questions.

A better sound system needs to be installed in the hearing
room to enable the public to hear the applicants'
presentations and the commissioners' discussion. The
existing sound system is defective and is not always fully
activated.

Members of the public offering testimony should be allowed
to use illustration boards and audio-visual presentations to
make their points.

The LPC must honor the meeting schedules and procedures of
Community Boards so that their reports on Certificate of
Appropriateness applications can be received and considered
by the commissioners at public hearing prior to a vote.

4. City and State Owned Landmarked Properties

We would like to see more openness in the review of
alterations to landmarks owned by the City, the State, and
public authorities. Applications for reports on such
properties should be available to the public before the
Commission takes action.

In all cases, alterations to City, State, and Authority
owned properties which would require a Certificate of
Appropriateness if privately owned should come to public
hearing. There must be prior public notice, and notice to
affected Community Boards. We believe the Charter requires
notice to Community Boards under Section 2800 (e).

We are also concerned that there is a failure to note
deteriorating conditions in City and State owned historic
properties, and in properties controlled by authorities such
as the MTA and the School Construction Authority. The LPC
could play an advisory role here.

5. How the LPC Operates in Relationship to Other City Agencies.

There is a need for improved coordination between the LPC
and other agencies such as the City Planning Commission, the
Department of Transportation, the Board of Standards and
Appeals, the Department of Buildings. Agency rules should
be reviewed to identify and attempt to resolve interagency
conflicts.

6. Lack of Consistent Standards and Criteria.

The LPC no longer seems to be adhering to widely recognized
standards of preservation practice such as the preservation
of the original fabric and structure of buildings under
restoration.

It can be unclear what criteria are being used when the LPC
makes its determinations. In some cases, there appears to
be a lack of consistent and rational policy from
neighborhood to neighborhood.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT AN OVERSIGHT HEARING

FROM: The Arts and Landmarks Committee of the Women's City
Club of New York. Laura Ludwig and Annette Rosen,
Co-Chairs. 33 West 60th Street, New York NY 10023. Phone:
212-353-8070. E-mail to mpfaelzer@wccny.org.

* What is an oversight hearing?

It is a hearing held by a standing committee of the City
Council to gather information about the performance of a
city agency. The Charter empowers the Council to "review on
a regular and continuous basis the activities of the
agencies of the city, including their service goals and
performance and management efficiency" and to "investigate
any matters within its jurisdiction relating to…the
effectuation of the purposes or provisions of this charter
or any laws relating to the city" (City Charter, §29. Power
of investigation and oversight). In other words, a
committee holding an oversight hearing can receive testimony
from anyone about an agency's record of providing service to
the public, or about the agency's effectiveness in terms of
bringing about the results the agency was created to produce.

* What is the purpose of the Landmarks Law?

To preserve the historic, cultural and architectural
heritage of the city. The City Administrative Code §25-301
states: "The Council finds that many improvements, as herein
defined, and landscape features, as herein defined, having a
special character or a special historical or aesthetic
interest or value and many improvements representing the
finest architectural products of distinct periods in the
history of the city have been uprooted, notwithstanding the
feasibility of preserving and continuing the use of such
improvements and landscape features, and without adequate
consideration of the irreplaceable loss to the people of the
city of the aesthetic, cultural and historic values
represented by such improvements and landscape features. In
addition, distinct areas may be similarly uprooted or may
have their distinctiveness destroyed, although the
preservation thereof may be both feasible and desirable. It
is the sense of the Council that the standing of this city
as a world wide tourist center and world capital of
business, culture and government cannot be maintained or
enhanced by disregarding the historic and architectural
heritage of the city and by countenancing the destruction of
such cultural assets."

* What City Council committee oversees the Landmarks
Preservation Commission?

The Committee on Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses,
a subcommittee of the Land Use Committee. The Land Use
Committee is chaired by Councilmember Melinda R. Katz of
Queens. The Landmarks Subcommittee is chaired by
Councilmember Simcha Felder of Brooklyn. Members of the
subcommittee are Councilmembers Charles Barron of Brooklyn,
Leroy G. Comrie, Jr. of Queens, G. Oliver Koppel of the
Bronx, Bill Perkins of Manhattan. Other members of the
council sit in on committee hearings that are of interest to
them. Feel free to call oversight hearings to the attention
of your own councilmember. For more information:
www.nyccouncil.info.

* Who supports a City Council oversight hearing about the
Landmarks Preservation Commission?

An ad hoc committee of preservationists concerned about the
future of the Landmarks n Preservation Commission has been
meeting under the aegis of the Women's City Club of New York
since early 2004. The group is co-chaired by Laura Ludwig
and Annette Rosen, who are also co-chairs of the Women's
City Club Arts and Landmarks Committee. Other participating
groups include Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side,
Hamilton Heights West Harlem Community Preservation
Organization, the Historic Districts Council, Landmark West,
the Morningside Heights Historic District Committee, and the
Society for the Architecture of the City. All of us have
extensive experience of working or trying to work with the
Landmarks Preservation Commission. Together we drafted a
list of issues needing to be addressed—most of which have
already been raised with LPC commissioners and staff without
result—and considered the probable causes of these problems.

Most of us think that the Landmarks Preservation
Commission is severely under-staffed, which hinders it in
carrying out functions important to the community. Probably
the most frequent complaint is the failure to designate
landmarks that need protection in a timely manner.
Questions were also raised about some other LPC policy
directions as outlined in the attached position paper. We
sought the advice of the City Council Land Use Committee,
and determined that a full discussion of the issues at an
oversight hearing could lead to a better understanding, and
potentially to a reconsideration of budget allocations.
Many preservationists would like their elected officials to
be fully briefed about problems at the Landmarks
Preservation Commission. Additional preservation
organizations expect to give testimony at an oversight hearing.

* What is the procedure for testifying at a Council hearing?

If speaking in person, come to City Hall. You will have to
pass through security and may be asked to show
identification. The guards at the door can direct you to
the hearing, probably in the Council Chambers on the second
floor, although sometimes hearings are moved to 250
Broadway. Fill in a speaker's slip, and you will be called
to the podium. It is strongly recommended but not necessary
to bring a written statement, and speaking time is usually
limited to three minutes. The Council will be glad if you
bring extra copies of your statement so that each member can
review it. If you are not free to attend during the day,
you can still participate by submitting written testimony.