Appointment of Lisa Kersavage to the Landmarks Preservation Commission

(00:00:13)

Good morning and welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Rules, Privileges, Elections, Standards and Ethics. At this time I would like to remind everyone to silence all electronic devices. Also at this point, going forward, no one is to approach the dais until we are ready to begin.

(00:04:20)

Thank you very much. Good morning to you, Chair Ung, and CM Marte, and to members of the Committee on Rules, Privileges, Elections, Standards and Ethics. I am honored to be Mayor Mamdani's nominee to be chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I believe the work of LPC is important and that the preservation of historic resources can support communities, foster economic development and contribute to the vitality of New York City.

I bring to the commission more than two decades of experience working at the intersection of historic preservation, urban planning and sustainability, as well as a strong track record of executive leadership in both government and the nonprofit sector. I believe my experience and approach to preservation will enable me to serve as an effective chair, and I hope that you will support my nomination. An interest in architectural history and urban planning brought me to the field and has shaped the direction of my career.

Having a lifelong dream of living and working in New York City, I was excited to move here for graduate studies at Columbia University, where I focused on the public policy and urban planning aspects of historic preservation. After working at the preservation nonprofit Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, I held senior positions at the Municipal Art Society of New York, where the advocacy was deliberately interdisciplinary, looking at how preservation can contribute to neighborhood plans, rezonings and economic development projects.

That approach to historic preservation has been an important guiding principle to me. At one organization I led a large project to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability of historic buildings. Later I was able to apply my resiliency and climate change interests, leading an ambitious design competition sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund and Van Alen Institute, convening global teams of interdisciplinary experts to reimagine a more sustainable Lower Mississippi River Delta. Subsequently I joined LPC, where I have worked for 11 years, serving first as the Director of Strategic Planning and Special Projects and for the last seven years as Executive Director.

In the time that I have been at the agency I have helped make advancements to increase efficiency, transparency and accessibility of our permitting process, to designate significant historic resources across the City and prioritizing places that reflect the City's diversity, and to educate property owners about permitting processes and grant opportunities. Taking on the role of chair at this time is personally important as I aim to help advance the goals of the Mamdani administration to address affordability, increase housing and make government work for all New Yorkers.

As chair, addressing housing issues will be a priority and would align with my interdisciplinary approach to the field. Finding the right balance between protecting the character of New York City's historic districts and landmarks while allowing for the development of new housing is an obligation that I am confident in my abilities to take on. Another priority for me is continuing to advance equitable representation in designations, prioritizing those that reflect New York City's diversity and that are in areas less represented by landmarks, and striving to tell the story of all New Yorkers.

In addition, I believe it is important to work closely with agencies such as the Department of City Planning to identify opportunities for preservation in areas planned for growth. Supporting property owners of designated landmarks is another priority. As chair I will continue advancing our work to support property owners and ensure that we are issuing guidance that is clear and that we consider rule amendments to expedite the type of work typically undertaken by small property owners. Another priority is addressing sustainability

(00:08:00)

issues in our historic resources. Encouraging work that sensitively improves energy efficiency and resiliency is important, and I will consider measures to streamline permitting to support this type of work. Finally, supporting and nurturing LPC staff is also a priority. Over my time at LPC I have witnessed their dedication to the field and to the New York City residents that they serve, and I am honored to lead such a talented team. I am excited for the future of preservation in New York City and thank the City Council for considering and supporting my nomination as chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Thank you again for offering the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to answer any questions that you have.

(00:08:42)

Thank you. We are also joined by CM Encarnación. I will ask you some questions before I turn it over to my colleagues. As Executive Director of LPC you played a leading role in crafting and implementing the agency's equity initiative. Can you explain what that is?

(00:08:59)

What we did was look agency-wide at how we improve equity and transparency across the entire agency. Some of that work was related to making sure that our permitting processes are very clear for everybody. We are an unusual agency in that our applicants range from individual property owners to architects or land use attorneys, so we wanted to make sure that individual property owners have equal access to information, that they could apply to LPC on their own and that our staff was working with them closely to help support them.

I think most importantly, with our landmark designations, we really sought to prioritize designations that reflect the diversity of the City and to also look at designations that are geographically diverse across the City, and to undertake research that is very inclusive and that really makes sure to tell those stories. I think especially telling the stories of social justice and civil rights is also very important to us. So we used that as a framework to prioritize designations over the last several years, and I think that work is very important and will continue.

(00:10:18)

Thank you. So when analyzing whether a site should be landmarked, how should the historic nature of the site be balanced with its aesthetic uniqueness? That is a great question.

(00:10:29)

You know, the landmarks law is quite broad, but over the sixty years of the agency we have developed criteria and comparative analysis to really look at how we can identify places that merit designation. Typically places are architecturally significant, but we also can recognize historic significance and cultural significance, and we usually look at the combination of all of them to determine that significance.

(00:11:01)

We have also been joined by CM Encarnación. As Executive Director, how do you respond to requests for designation from advocates? Can you explain the regulatory thresholds for these designations?

(00:11:18)

LPC does not have a formal applications process for designations the way other cities do, but we do have a process for people to request whether a site merits designation, and that is the Request for Evaluation. Those come in to us and our research department, guided by our Director of Research, analyzes whether the property merits designation. We do a lot of research into these sites and then respond to the person who sent it to us. Importantly, that information goes into our survey, so if it is a place that merits designation it goes into our survey, but it does not necessarily lead to a designation.

(00:12:03)

I am sorry, can you clarify what it means to go into a survey?

(00:12:06)

So our research department has surveys of historic, culturally and architecturally significant buildings across the City. Those are our internal working guidelines for places, and we refer to them in environmental review and other analysis that we do. Some of those we advance to designate either as an individual landmark, interior landmark or a historic district.

(00:12:36)

And do you explain that whole process to advocates about how to get the designation?

(00:12:45)

Yes, and I admit it is a bit confusing because I think people do often think there is an application process for designation. So we do try very hard to communicate that clearly. I think advocacy organizations understand that, but I think particularly individual property owners sometimes reach out to us. We do in our responses to people try to explain that, and that if a building merits designation it does not necessarily mean that we are going to put it forward through the designation process.

(00:13:29)

Okay, and is this explanation usually in that letter? Like, what is the usual format? Usually in the letter? Okay, yes.

(00:13:36)

And we have it on our website as well.

(00:13:39)

Okay. So what public outreach do you do to set expectations and explain the standards for landmarking, Certificates of Appropriateness and hardship applications?

(00:13:52)

A Certificate of Appropriateness is what we issue for a project that would be going to a public hearing, so that is part of our permitting process. I should say LPC issues about 12,000 permits a year and about 95% of those are approved at a staff level because they meet our rules, and about 5% of permits will go to a public hearing. Those are the permits that require a Certificate of Appropriateness typically. For that, if a project does not meet our rules, then it is really our commissioners who decide whether the proposed work is appropriate. It is based on our decades of permitting, and I think it allows them some discretion, but they are making sure that it is appropriate to the historic character of the landmark or to the historic district. So that is that permitting question.

A hardship application is very important. What makes our law constitutional is that there is a process of hardship: if somebody finds that they are no longer able to have an economic return on their property, then they can file for a hardship application and we will go through a very careful review of that. It is a complex process. It happens very rarely. There have been about 23 in the history of the agency, but it is an important safeguard for the constitutionality of the landmarks law. So that is how I would explain it.

(00:15:45)

How would the public know this? Like, what is the process for letting the public know?

(00:15:50)

Yes, and there is a hardship application before the commission now. For example, we did a video on YouTube to try and explain what the hardship application process is. We are very transparent with all of the materials we put out, and there are many thousands of pages as they are big, complex projects, but we put all of that information on our website. We tried during the hearing and public meeting process to explain it, but it is admittedly probably the most technically difficult and probably the most confusing process that we have. They are very much before the commission.

(00:16:32)

Thank you. We have also been joined by CM Carr and CM Krishnan. I do have more questions but I will turn it over to CM Marte.

(00:16:41)

Thank you, Chair Ung, and thank you for being here. First I just want to say we were thrilled about the recent decision regarding the landmarking of St. Mary's Church on the Lower East Side and also the commission's decision to save 139 Thompson Street from demolition despite the argument from the owner that preservation was

(00:16:59)

impossible. So thank you. It was under your interim leadership that we were able to get those two successful outcomes. More broadly, landmarking has seen a decline in recent years since the beginning of the pandemic. Do you plan to increase our landmarking efforts back to pre-COVID numbers?

(00:17:22)

Yes, and I understand that our numbers did go down. The pandemic and other issues really did result in that, but I do think that the raw numbers of designations might not be the best metric for assessing our work. They did admittedly drop during that time. I think with our focus on equity we are looking at designations in areas where we have not done as much research, and owner outreach sometimes can take longer. So I think the quality of our designations is a very important metric. Certainly we are looking at potential designations across all five boroughs. We designated two historic districts recently in Brooklyn and are surveying across all five boroughs all the time to identify potential resources. There will be ebbs and flows in those numbers of designations.

(00:18:26)

Okay. Demolition by neglect continues to be a serious issue for landmarks. Would you support legislation aimed at better protecting neglected landmarks through stricter enforcement, more resources for rehabilitation efforts and greater oversight over demolition applications?

(00:18:44)

Sure. Demolition by neglect cases, I recognize, can be challenging for everybody. They again are very rare, and just so people know, demolition by neglect is when a property declines to a point where it becomes an unsafe building and would require demolition because it is unsafe. It happens very rarely and often times we are dealing with property owners who are struggling typically. So I think there might be a perception that developers are bad actors, but it is typically not that.

We have a strong law, we have a strong enforcement policy, we have dedicated staff who really work very hard and very carefully with DOB and other partners to try to get appropriate action and even find new buyers for the properties. We understand that every time this happens it is upsetting, but it does happen extremely rarely. I think we have the tools that we need to address this issue. Thank you for that.

(00:20:03)

In your opening remarks you mentioned that you want to continue the work that the Landmarks Preservation Commission has been doing on an equity framework and looking for areas outside of traditional landmarking neighborhoods for opportunity. Are there any new initiatives you want to create within the LPC or anything you care about that you feel has not been addressed yet?

(00:20:29)

Yeah, that is an exciting question. I am proud of the work that we have done in recent years, so I think in many ways it is continuing on with some of this work. I am personally very interested in technology. I was very proud of our new portal, Portico, our permitting software, and we are about to undertake a big effort to redo a lot of our technology. While that is kind of insider, I get very excited about that and how we can really improve the customer experience through these software improvements. So I am personally excited about that.

Also, really increasing our sustainability and resiliency work. As I mentioned, I think that is important. We have just recently done a survey of property owners to see what barriers there might be to things like flood-proofing their homes. So I am excited to think through how we can do more educational work, or maybe think about rules, or sort of encourage property owners to do that kind of very important work to protect their properties.

And I think the landmark designations are also important. Our equity work will continue and that has been very meaningful to me personally too, to really lift all the voices in New York City through those designations.

(00:21:45)

Thank you for that. Piggybacking off the chair's question about how a local advocate or activist can move forward with an application or submit an application. As we know locally, we typically partner with major organizations like preservation groups who are experts in this. But let us say if I was an individual that was not in that bubble of expertise, would you be open to having a much simpler, streamlined application for the average citizen just to at least show interest in a site?

(00:22:23)

Absolutely. I think what is really important, and I think unique nationally about New York City, is that we do not have an application process. There are many other cities where you have to come to the municipal preservation organization with a fully fleshed-out nomination that can cost a lot of money. We certainly do not require any of that and we are always happy to meet with communities to talk about potential designations. Nobody has to do any serious work or hire any experts. They can come to us and talk to us about that.

We can go out into the field and look at these resources. We have already surveyed the area so we might have a sense of whether a place merits designation or not. I would say people should just reach out to us. They do not need to hire somebody. It is great when they work with preservation organizations but they do not have to. They can come directly to us. Community boards can as well. So we are very open to just starting with a conversation or some basic information.

Okay, thank you.

(00:23:28)

Those are all my questions, Chair. Thank you.

(00:23:33)

You have also been joined by Deputy Speaker Williams and Majority Leader. I would like to turn it over to CM Krishnan.

(00:23:41)

Thank you so much, Chair. And Lisa, it is great to see you. Thank you for your testimony today as well. I just had one question, which is about how you in this role would approach balancing community perspective with the work of the LPC. I think that is really important. In Jackson Heights, for example, we have a historic district. But also across the City there are times where the community feels strongly that what is best and what makes the most sense is landmarking something, and we need to get that done and push it through. There are other times where a community feels it is important to protect a space for one purpose or another, and LPC has a role to play there as well.

I think oftentimes it is crucial, especially in neighborhoods that are suffering from great inequities, whether it be serious rates of gentrification and displacement, or in my case, lack of public space and green space, that community feedback and perspective is really important to take into account. How under your leadership would you approach that? How would you think about navigating and balancing it? It could cut different ways on different issues, but I think it is more the principle of making sure that the community is well represented and their voices are heard and factored into the decision making that LPC makes. I would love to hear your perspective on that.

(00:25:06)

Sure. We do hold public hearings almost every Tuesday, so we welcome testimony and feedback from the community and we get quite a bit of it. I think it is always a balance. We do have to make merit-based decisions, and also for our permitting. In an ideal world we are all kind of aligned on the merit and the action and the community voice. But sometimes that does not happen. We do want to be mindful that historic preservation is not used to simply stop development. I think especially at our public hearings the community voice is very important. Our commissioners are

(00:25:52)

New York City residents, and I think they really do try to take into consideration the concerns, the suggestions and the recommendations by communities and community boards. So it is an important part of the process. When we hear from the community about potential landmark designations it is also very important to us. Elected officials — we take that very seriously. We are again bound by making those merit-based decisions, but it can be very helpful for us to hear from a community that there is historic significance out there that maybe we do not know about. Maybe we do not know the full story. Maybe there is cultural significance about a place that we were not aware of. So it is very important to us.

(00:26:35)

Great, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

(00:26:38)

I would like now to turn it over to Deputy Speaker Williams.

(00:26:45)

My district includes two landmark districts, so these issues are not theoretical for us. They directly affect homeowners and our institutions and the neighborhood character, which is something that my constituents are extremely passionate about. I know you have emphasized supporting housing and affordability as a priority. How do you ensure that push does not come at the expense of preserving historic sites and landmark protections?

(00:27:11)

Thank you, it is a great question. We were very excited to designate those two districts in your district. I think housing issues are the most critical issue of today in the City. We are working to really find that balance of how we can create opportunity for housing. The Commission over its 60 years has regularly approved additions, new buildings and created housing and adaptive reuse projects, converting say a manufacturing or industrial building to housing. It has been decades of experience doing that.

But I think there is a crisis now. I think we need to try and figure out that balance. We have approved some larger projects in historic districts or on individual landmarks to allow for housing. I think we have found that balance of preservation and housing opportunity and I think it is something that is important for me to focus on. I am excited to take on that challenge.

(00:28:17)

Thank you. The Merchants House case raised concerns about whether LPC is doing enough to protect landmarks from adjacent development. Do you believe LPC got that case right and what does that say about how you will approach similar conflicts?

And I will say I think this is like my theme of concern, because I think the Merchants House should be preserved and I know that LPC really has not been a good partner in making sure that the house is not harmed. I do believe the adjacent property is set to build housing, which I know we need, but I do not think that building housing should come at the expense of potentially eliminating critical history, especially considering the recent findings that the house might have been a stop on the Underground Railroad.

(00:29:09)

Sure, I am happy to answer that. I will say abolitionist history is incredibly important and uncovering new information about that history is great. I mean, it is difficult history to uncover, so we are excited about the findings there.

Specific to that application, it is something that is before the Commission now so I can only speak broadly about it. In the past, LPC did approve a new building adjacent to the Merchants House. With that approval, we required — through our consulting engineers' advice — a list of 10 things that the developer had to do to safeguard the Merchants House, and specifically the plaster inside the Merchants House Museum. So the previous approval came with an extra level of requirements from LPC.

DOB is really the agency charged with that kind of safety for any construction that is adjacent to a landmark. They also have to submit something to DOB to ensure that they are safeguarding the structure of the landmark. It is an important issue to us. We recognize that it is an important issue to the Merchants House Museum and to the Parks Department that owns the property. As we go through this process we will be looking at those kinds of safeguards in the future as well.

(00:30:49)

Yes, I feel like the times call for that. I mean, I do not have to say it, but we see the erasure of particularly Black history and I think New York overall has not done a great job of preserving history related to slavery, abolitionists or Black history. I know CM Marte and I had sponsored a Bill to create a trail just mapping certain locations — something that should be preserved and taken very seriously. Again, I know we need to build housing but I do not think we should do that at the expense of potentially ruining the house and not prioritizing history, which I think is so important considering everything that is happening right now.

(00:31:42)

I agree with you on all counts. For the safeguarding of the building, there is construction in New York City adjacent to landmarks and very old landmark buildings frequently, and they have been able to do that without harm to an adjacent building. So I think we need to carefully look at this, but I think it has happened across the City.

In terms of the abolitionist history, I agree that it is really crucial history and I think for today, in our environment, you can look back to that time and see analogous history. LPC worked with a historian to create an abolition trail in Brooklyn and it exists now. It is virtual — you can go and scan a QR code to take it. We have about 12 sites that you can stop by and learn about, which have documented abolition and Underground Railroad history. I think it is personally for me just a fascinating period of our history — inspiring, important — and I agree that we can do more to recognize it.

(00:32:54)

Yeah, and even the Merchant family themselves... I know that is like the last remaining house in New York City from that time period. So anyway, I just wanted to advocate for the Merchants House. Another question that I have, that was not pre-prepared but now I am interested in: are there any stipulations when a developer gets approval to build next to a historic house? If something happens, is that developer held accountable? Is there any type of stipulations or things that could be done? Because I know the biggest challenge is that the foundation is going to be destroyed depending on how that development gets carried out. I am just wondering if there is something holding them accountable, like fixing something or insuring something, or if something goes wrong is it kind of like, oh well, it is up to the Merchants House to figure it out?

(00:34:00)

Well, when you are doing construction next to a landmark building or historic district building you do have to file a construction protection plan. I cannot fully answer your question because it is a DOB process — exactly what the penalty would be if something goes wrong — so I would have to get back to you on that. But I know that this construction might have been... I am just wondering if you did have any thoughts on that because you do play a critical role in making a determination on whether or not something like this is even feasible.

Right, and we work closely with DOB to make sure that we are protecting our historic resources. There are requirements through them for any building to make sure that the construction of a new building does not harm an adjacent one. But there is

(00:34:49)

special consideration with the older ones, but we can get back to you on that. No problem. You noted that LPC is considering rule changes to support ADUs. What would that actually look like in historic districts like those in my

(00:35:00)

district? I fought really hard during City of Yes to get substantial carve-outs, because the many wonderful constituents in the historic part of my district actually fought to get this landmark status. The City did not come to them — they worked and organized together as a community to get this part of the community landmarked. They are very concerned, and we were very concerned during City of Yes, about how to protect neighborhood character. I just wanted some more insight there.

(00:35:34)

Sure. City of Yes allowed for certain types of ADUs in historic districts. You cannot build a new detached building for an ADU, but you can convert an existing ancillary structure, and you can also do basement and attic ADUs in a single-family home. There are certain types of ADUs you can do in historic districts and some that you cannot.

We have not yet actually received an application for an ADU in a historic district. I understand your concerns but we are actually excited by the opportunity. As we start to get more applications we will understand the work types associated with ADUs. We are predicting some related to ancillary structures, typically garage buildings, and what might be needed. So I think we are trying to anticipate what that work might be and what rules could help streamline that kind of review. We do not think that it is going to have an impact on the historic character of districts, and I think personally it can be exciting to see these be built.

(00:36:57)

So to that point, LPC does still need to approve any adjustments. It is not that these homeowners can now just proceed on their own — they still do have to go through a process. As they do for many different things, sometimes to their dismay, when they want to fix something on their homes they do have to deal with LPC in some form. So are you saying that they still will have to deal with LPC if they want to make any adjustments or put an ADU on their

(00:37:26)

property? For any work that impacts the exterior of either the primary building or the secondary building, they will have to come to us. If it is interior work, that would not be reviewed by us. It is really just the exterior. Okay, no problem.

(00:37:42)

So in communities like Ozone Park, residents have strong concerns about ADUs and density creep. How will you ensure these policies do not gradually change the character of low-density landmark neighborhoods?

Well, I think for the

(00:37:58)

historic character issues, because these ADUs in historic districts are limited to the basement, the attic or an existing structure, from a historic character perspective this would not meaningfully change that historic character. Okay.

(00:38:15)

We have also heard concerns about delays within LPC, particularly around research and project review. In my district there has been a request to explore expanding the boundaries of the Addisleigh Park historic district that has been sitting without movement for months. How will you address backlog and responsiveness issues within the agency?

Yes, so when

(00:38:38)

people request an evaluation for a potential district or expansion of a district, that research does take us some time. We really go building by building and look very carefully. So I understand that can seem like it is a long time. Responsiveness to those issues is being evaluated right now by our staff and we will be able to get back on that shortly.

(00:39:05)

Okay, thank you. We have also heard consistently from cultural institutions that the LPC process is too slow, too complex and too costly, with projects taking years and organizations fronting money they do not have. What specific changes will you make to streamline approvals and improve coordination across agencies, particularly with cultural institutions in landmarked

(00:39:29)

buildings? Our cultural institutions are incredibly important to the City and to the City's economy, and we are thrilled when they are in historic buildings. We have not had the experience of cultural institutions saying that there are such long delays...

(00:39:47)

Any Bronx specifically has a project that they are working on, and LPC — it has been an interesting back and forth around these honestly ugly gates on the building that apparently are landmarked and they have to go through some particular process. It has cost money and it has taken more time for what I consider to be like these ugly green gates on the windows. We are happy to talk to them about a historic landmark, so yeah.

(00:40:20)

We actually have not received recent applications for them, but we will keep... we can reach out, we can work on this together. Happy to do that. We know that they have done award-winning work actually on their landmarks buildings and did some of the first LEED-certified historic building restorations there. So they have done great work and we are happy to support them. It is an important issue and we are always really working to make sure that we are approving permits sufficiently.

Whether it is a big cultural institution like the Met, where we approved the expansion and that does take a little bit longer, I think we worked really productively and had a great outcome there. Or when it is a smaller cultural institution, typically it is approved by staff and that can happen in a matter of a couple of weeks. If it needs a public hearing, that can happen in three months to go through the full process with the community board and then our hearing process. So we really do pride ourselves on being very efficient and trying to work particularly with cultural institutions and NGOs. We are happy to get the feedback, we are happy to work with you on this and really make sure that we are being as responsive as we need to be, as large a construction capital project as it may be.

(00:41:45)

Let us just say a cultural institution — is there precedent for waiving certain requirements? You know, under the law we would not be able to do that, but...

(00:41:56)

Often what we will do is work with cultural institutions to say, you know, if you did the work this way it meets our rules and this will be faster. We allow for replacement materials and other ways to make projects more affordable. So we are very hands-on and really try and work with people to meet their needs and also to get to yes. We want these projects to be approved.

OK, last final question. How do you plan to work with organizations like the Historic Districts Council and the New York Landmarks Conservancy, especially when community-driven landmarking efforts need additional support and agency capacity is limited?

I love working with our nonprofit friends in the preservation world. The New York Landmarks Conservancy is always looking for ways to partner. We actually partner a lot with the Landmarks Conservancy on our outreach because they can offer property owners some valuable technical assistance and loans, and we have a small grant program. So we work often with organizations and are happy to continue to do that. I come from the nonprofit historic preservation world, so I am happy to keep bolstering these relationships.

(00:43:17)

I would like to turn it over to Minority Leader Carr. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for being here. I want to talk a little bit about what the Deputy Speaker was talking...

(00:43:28)

...about with respect to the difficulties that people expect when a landmarking gets designated. Because typically we often encounter owners, whether they are a not-for-profit owner or just a private owner, who is concerned that the honor of getting the landmarking comes with significant cost escalations and complications when it comes to maintaining or improving the site. So what do we have available to us in the City with respect to assisting these owners when it comes time for them to engage in some basic repairs that now are actually really out of proportion with what they would have had to pay if it was just a regular building?

(00:44:13)

It is a great question and we have invested a lot in working with smaller property owners, and I think it is really important. Our staff are very hands-on and we encourage any property owner that just has questions — if they are just thinking about work — to reach out, especially to our public information officer, to just start that conversation. I think if we can talk to the property owners we can share the options. We have a permit application guidebook that outlines all of the work that you can do at the staff level and it includes a lot about replacement materials, things that make the work potentially cheaper. Regular maintenance does not need a permit from us at all, so they do not have to come to us for that. But for other work, I think it is great for people to talk to us early and we can try and help guide them through that system and make sure that they are meeting the guidelines but also that they are able to do this work efficiently and quickly.

Our staff will help do the permit application for them. Staff regularly presents on behalf of property owners at our Commission if something needs to go to a hearing. So we really do invest a lot of resources into helping individual property owners. We have a small grant program — it is admittedly small — and we do partner, as I said, with groups like the Landmarks Conservancy to help with loan programs and other opportunities like that for homeowners.

(00:45:52)

So you mentioned the grant opportunity, which I think is for interior and facade work, ranging from... it is for exterior work, yeah. So what is... and is that completely federally funded? It is all Community Development Block Grant funding, it is. So in terms of other grant opportunities, you mentioned this partnership with the Conservancy, but do you think Landmarks has the bandwidth to do more in terms of trying to coordinate all the different private grant opportunities that you could help a landmark designee seek in the event that they need to do work that either does not qualify for your grant or the funds just...

(00:46:32)

Yes, and our grant program is a little bit limited and also some property owners do not meet the federal criteria for their income levels, so that is also a bit of a challenge. I think we really do rely on our nonprofit partners to help us share information about these different opportunities and that is important to us. There is also a state homeowner tax credit that I think is important. I would like to see us do some more education on that and try and grow that program as well. It is for certain census tracts, but I think it is another opportunity for helping property owners.

I think we have the bandwidth. We have invested quite a bit in outreach — it is a really important aspect of what we do — and we have the bandwidth to do more.

(00:47:17)

And so do you think that you would be able to conduct public sessions in conjunction with not-for-profit partners on the availability of both public and non-public grants for these sorts of projects? Particularly, you know, people do not always know what is out there, let alone to come to you and say, can I apply for this? I think you kind of have to meet people where they are.

(00:47:37)

I totally agree. What we typically do is a session on how to get a permit from LPC, but then we also add to that our information on our grant program. The Landmarks Conservancy will often join with us and we do it kind of historic district by historic district to keep it small, to be able to answer all of these permit questions but also make sure they have the financial resources information as well.

We have also done a session with the State Historic Preservation Office on Zoom to try and get a larger audience and also then have that information available on YouTube for people to reference. It is probably time for us to do that again. It is important work and we are happy to keep doing it.

(00:48:24)

I appreciate that answer. I think one of the concerns I have, and I know many of my constituents have, is that the limited availability of funding streams with respect to supporting historic preservation often leads to projects coming to the Commission and the Commission having to consider projects that really run across purposes with historic preservation.

The case in point that I am thinking of is the Ernest Flagg Estate in my district. There were a couple of different iterations of residential developments for that property that I think everyone kind of universally felt compromised the historic nature of the site. But LPC kind of looked at it through the prism of, does this development going to further the preservation of the buildings we actually care about, even though I think there was a strong case to make that the entire site was worthy of being considered as a whole rather than just the structures that met the designation. So I think that is something to kind of flag for the future. Would you just shed some light on how you would approach those sorts of situations?

(00:49:31)

Sure, and I am not sure that I have a lot of detailed knowledge about the specific applications that came to us. But I think when we designate a property we do write a designation report that outlines the significance of the designation and whether it is the buildings or the buildings and the site, and that does really guide us in our approvals. We are mindful that sometimes there are properties that are maybe large, that have been vacant for some time, that need some adjacent development to help invest into the primary building. So that is something that we are mindful of. But I think the approvals are usually laid out based on the significance of the designation itself.

But I think it is a good point and important for us to think about.

(00:50:26)

So even when you have a structural designation that does not apply necessarily to the entire property, is there any level of analysis that is taken into account beyond just safeguarding the building from a safety and preservation standpoint during the construction plan? Rather, what and how it impacts the building, the view of it and all these other different aspects that really helped make the building what it is, based on the way it was situated at the time of the designation as opposed to how it will be situated after a development has taken place?

(00:50:59)

Yeah, and it really does depend on whether we have designated just the building or the site, or whether we have designated it with adjacent land. But I think if it is something that is going to a public hearing, the commissioners cannot help but think about that larger context. But I think we are bound by the law of what we regulate, and so if we have only designated part of it we really cannot regulate what is not designated. So it varies, I think, property by...

(00:51:35)

...property. OK, thank you. Thank you, Chair, and congratulations on your nomination. Some of my questions will be hyperlocal and then we will spread out. In communities like East New York and Brownsville, especially the Nehemiah Houses, there are concerns about overdevelopment and the losing of character and identity of homes that were built for working-class homeowners. How do you see LPC working with communities like Nehemiah, East New York, Brownsville and New Lots to help preserve neighborhood character while still allowing for smart and thoughtful growth without changing the character of the community?

(00:52:26)

It is a great question. When an area is slated or planned for growth, we do try and partner with City Planning to look at the preservation opportunities. In fact, in East New York we did designate the Empire State Dairy on Atlantic Avenue, which has new development behind it. We crafted the designation to keep the front building but then to allow the housing to be built behind it. So I thought that was a creative way to both have the preservation and the new housing.

Our job is to protect historic character, not necessarily to stop change. But I understand that when there is new development it can be upsetting to people. I think we do want to make sure that we are looking at potential designations in those areas where there are still interesting resources out there. I am happy to talk to you about that.

(00:53:36)

OK, well we would definitely love to have more conversation on that. One thing we hear often from communities is that conversations around landmarking usually happen after development has already started and residents feel like they are playing catch-up. As Commissioner, would you support early engagement with communities and more proactive identification of neighborhoods with historical and cultural significance before they are heavily impacted by...

(00:54:11)

...development? Yeah, and again, working with City Planning — recently with the Midtown South rezoning, for example, we designated five important historic resources in advance of that rezoning. I think we looked at places that were both historically and culturally significant but also had what we call a placemaking quality, that had a real presence in the neighborhood, where their preservation would help retain the character of the area while it also was undergoing some redevelopment.

So I think that is something that is important to me. We have done that with various rezonings. In the Gowanus rezoning we did that as well — we designated five buildings there too. So I think it is important to work with City Planning to bring the preservation and planning issues together. I am happy to continue to do that when it is appropriate.

(00:55:06)

Thank you, thank you for your response on that. As you know, many NYCHA residents across the City, including in my district which has about 12 NYCHA developments, have concerns about the long-term future of public housing under this administration and its continued push to privatize developments and place them into the RAD/PACT program. Residents are concerned not only about management changes from NYCHA to private managers, but also about preserving the identity, the history and the community fabric of these developments. As we have seen with conversions surrounding places like Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea, for example, where they are looking to completely demolish that development — what role, if any, do you believe LPC can play in helping preserve historically and culturally significant public housing communities as conversions and redevelopment and modernization of NYCHA...

(00:56:10)

...continues? Sure. We have designated two NYCHA complexes. What we have really looked at with those is the first sort of prototypes of public housing — one is Williamsburg Houses and one in Harlem — really looking at some of the earliest housing that embodies that type. I think those are important designations for us and important for the City.

I am not necessarily sure that we would be looking at more designations of NYCHA since we have done these really important ones. I know that they are on the National Register and they are able to use federal historic tax credits, which is very important. So we have played a small role in that review process. But I think the designations we have done are great and important and we have been happy to work with NYCHA as they improved those two...

(00:57:16)

...designated NYCHA developments. NYCHA developments are home to generations of New Yorkers and represent an important part of the City's social and cultural history, especially for Black and Brown communities and working-class families. Do you believe that there should be broader conversations around recognizing the historical and cultural significance of certain NYCHA campuses or public housing communities, even if preservation looks different from traditional landmarking?

(00:57:53)

It is a great question and I do think there is very important history there. I think the right tool potentially is the one that is being used, which is the National Register. There has been important history documented and I think that puts it into the formal record that this history is very, very important and very interesting. Public housing and how it has supported New Yorkers is so important. So I think the tool that is being used is the right one. I am not sure that necessarily the regulatory arm of LPC is needed, but I think documenting that history the way it is being done now is very...

(00:58:39)

...important. OK, one concern I hear often from residents is that redevelopment conversations can sometimes happen at communities instead of with communities. From your perspective, how can LPC help ensure that residents have a stronger voice in conversations about preserving public housing and working-class Black and Brown neighborhoods when it comes to preserving the identity? I am also looking at the community history before major developments are made. While I also understand the City's push for more housing, we also have to make sure that we are protecting what I call the oldest affordable housing stock in the City of New York, which is NYCHA, and not selling it out. So I just want to get your perspective on what LPC would do in those situations.

(00:59:47)

I think it is hard for LPC when, unless it is actually designated by us, we do not necessarily have a role. I agree that those conversations are really important to have when we did do a review of proposed work on that. The two that we have designated, we did have community testimony — that is a very important part of our process. But I think that those conversations... the City is really good at running those kinds of conversations. I am not sure how much we would have to add unless they are actually designated.

(01:00:23)

Do you have... I mean, is there a list that exists of all the designated NYCHA developments?

(01:00:30)

Yes, and we are happy to provide that to you.

(01:00:31)

If we can... hopefully when you become chair you can provide that. My last question pertains to Thomas Jefferson High School, which has been... there has been some controversy around a particular statue of Thomas Jefferson that is placed in the hallway of Thomas Jefferson High School. There have been multiple petitions that have been

(01:00:58)

circulated by the students of Thomas Jefferson — now it is a campus because it is made up of multiple high schools — asking that the statue be removed. This is from their own knowledge and studying of history. So we know that the statue has been stated to us by DOE that the statue is landmarked. We would love to work with you to see how we can acquiesce to the wishes and the desires of the students

(01:01:30)

who wish to have that statue removed from the hallway.

(01:01:33)

I am happy to talk about it. I am not familiar with the situation. If this is a statue that is attached to the building, or it is just... it is a statue right in the hallway? As soon as you walk into the building, it is a big Thomas Jefferson statue.

(01:01:51)

But it was stated to us by DOE that the statue is landmarked. So there were conversations around covering the statue up or removal of the statue. Again, I just want to say that this is something that came from the students, who said that they did not want that statue in their hallways that they have to walk past as they are going to class.

(01:02:17)

Yeah, if it is on the interior and it is an individual landmark, I am not quite sure, but if it is on the interior I do not think that we would regulate it at

(01:02:26)

all, actually. There is no regulation.

(01:02:28)

But we can look into that to confirm. I probably should not say that so definitively. So interior landmarking — who would that go through? We have about 120 interior landmarks across the City. They are very rare. I do not know that we have any high schools that have interior landmarks. I could be wrong about that.

(01:02:50)

Typically when we have designated school buildings we do not do the interior as well.

(01:02:57)

Even if it is a monument on the outside, we have approved removals of certain monuments. Sometimes we do not regulate them. It depends. We can look into this some more. That is what we want — we want folks to get information back to us that is accurate. But according to DOE saying that it is landmarked, we can look into that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

(01:03:22)

Thank you. I have also been joined by CM Brewer. I do have a few more questions and then I will turn it over to CM Brewer. At the last hearing the Council held on nominations for the LPC, a number of advocates testified that they hoped the LPC would deny the West Park Presbyterian request for approval to demolish their landmark building so that the site can be sold to a residential developer. What is the current status of the application?

(01:03:51)

So this is a hardship application before the Commission now, and

(01:03:57)

as I said, hardship applications are very rare and they are a fact-driven process.

(01:04:06)

This is something I could potentially be voting on if I am nominated or approved, so I want to be careful what I say. But I can assure you that this is going through a very robust review. We have had a public hearing. We have had public meetings. We have had lots of documents submitted to us, both from the applicant and from individuals, from organizations and from elected officials. So this is undergoing a very careful review.

(01:04:36)

Let us just take this broadly. In this case the church claims it is a hardship to maintain its current building and they said they would use the expected funds from the sale to start a social justice fund. So without speaking specifically to West Park, what do you think about in general when churches have these hardship applications?

(01:05:02)

There have been very few hardship applications. I think there have been 23 over the history of the Commission. So they are very rare and each one is different and each one is fact-driven. I am not sure that I can necessarily compare one to another. I would say just generally, with faith-based organizations, we are sympathetic to their needs. They sometimes have buildings that are expensive to maintain. They have experienced deferred maintenance. They want to put money into their mission, not necessarily their building, sometimes. So these raise complex issues for the agency that

(01:05:41)

we are very mindful of.

(01:05:45)

So to what degree of financial hardship should be allowed to exempt a property from the landmark law?

(01:05:52)

So for a hardship application, it is prescribed in the law that

(01:05:59)

there is a judicial test. So it is not something that the chair or the Commission unilaterally looks at. It is really prescribed by a judicial test.

(01:06:14)

Okay. You have been involved in landmarking other religious sites that claim landmarking will be a hardship. Is landmarking small churches with dwindling congregations something that is bound to fail? If not, how do you propose to keep churches from claiming hardship and selling their landmark sites to residential developers? A difficult question.

(01:06:37)

In terms of our designations, about 1.5 percent are religious in nature, so it is a small subset. Religious properties are often, within a community, some of the most significant architecture. People — whether they are a member of the congregation or a neighborhood resident — often regard them as the unofficial landmarks, or sometimes official landmarks, of a neighborhood. So we understand that there are competing issues here. We have worked with many religious institutions across the City to help them. We have a team at LPC that is dedicated to permitting just for religious institutions. We think that is really important because they know those building types really well and they often know the congregations.

I think we are very sympathetic to these issues and, in some cases, the congregation is getting smaller. When we think about new designations for religious institutions, we are very careful. We do get a lot of requests for evaluation for religious institutions. We prioritize a very small number because we understand that these are facing difficult issues at the moment. Religious institutions do grow too. We have approved new buildings adjacent to churches or on a campus in recent cases. So we have tried to figure out ways that we can help them be financially stable while also retaining the landmark or historic district building.

(01:08:34)

Thank you. I do have two more questions but I would like to turn it over to CM Brewer.

(01:08:40)

I landmarked that church — I just want to make that very clear — and I will make sure that it is there forever. But thank you for your comments generally about the churches. When I was dealing with one other church, St. Paul's, we managed to get the basement where there is a nonprofit to be a condo, working with OMB. So my question is, just generally, do you have any creative answers? I want these churches and synagogues to survive, not to be torn down. Are there any other ideas you might have to give them funding? I know that the City cannot give them funding for religious purposes. Do you have suggestions about how to maintain them when they are landmarked? Because the roof on St. Paul's is five and a half million dollars right now. They are raising the money, and there are certain criteria that OMB demands for the money, and sometimes the church is saying they do not want to abide by those rules. So it is complicated. But we do have to figure this out because they cannot survive without some other funding. There is certain state funding — I know the state can do it. Some ADA ramps they can do. Yeah, and it is a

(01:09:56)

challenging issue. I think it depends on the particular resources as well. I think the City of Yes has opened up opportunities for some development if there is a campus or parish grounds — there could be additional development. I think that can be

(01:10:17)

important. Manhattan does not have much of that, but I hear you.

(01:10:20)

Yeah, it might be more in the boroughs. That is an option but I think it is really important. We have worked with faith-based organizations on approving new buildings or other kinds of work, including in Manhattan — on 81st Street I am aware of, and the Lower East Side as well. So I think that is really important. Improvements to the federal historic tax credit could help. I wonder if there is a public-private tax credit arrangement. Right now it is not used maybe as much as it could be but I think that could be

(01:10:57)

potentially an opportunity as well. Okay, that is a topic that really needs more intense discussion. I feel strongly about it. The communities — I was able to landmark West End Avenue, 850 buildings — but just generally, because we had the funding in the neighborhood to hire, in this case, a researcher to do the work. So my question is, is there funding for other historic districts and neighborhoods that may not be able to raise that kind of money? Because when historic districts come to you, particularly large ones, they need to have some background work done and then you can supplement it.

(01:11:32)

So are you making some effort? I will be very honest — I would landmark the whole City as a historic district. I say that right into the microphone and I get a whole bunch of trouble and I do not care.

(01:11:41)

But the issue for me is, how do you get other historic districts and neighborhoods that do not have that kind of resource? What are you doing about that? And I actually said this before you came in.

(01:11:52)

I am sorry, I was at another hearing next door. I do not think that we need additional resources to do that and I do not think that communities should feel an obligation to provide that level of information to

(01:12:04)

us. We do have a research department that can undertake this work. It is always helpful to get information. How are you doing work with the communities to say this is a potential historic district? Do they have to come to you? How are we making it clearer to people? For example, we just designated two historic districts in Brooklyn, in Flatbush. We came up with the boundaries. We had surveyed the area before and we re-surveyed it. We developed the boundaries. To be honest, the community had hoped we would do more but we did not find that some of those areas merited it. But we went out — there is back and forth on this — and our research department undertook it. Nobody needed to pay anything to do that.

I do not think that communities should feel obligated to do that. We are happy to work with preservation organizations. Even if we just get rough boundaries, we can look at that. We were told in the past that we needed to come up with funding in order to have at least an initial presentation. But it is good to hear you. I would love to see, as time goes on, if you are confirmed, that LPC says, "Let us look at these ten areas and let us get going on them," because communities correctly feel that they do not have enough historic districts. I agree. But they would also need some help in identifying them. It takes time and money to get those areas designated, all the research. So you are saying you can do all that?

(01:13:41)

Community Board 9 did a historic preservation plan and they identified various districts, and we have actually designated I think three of them in Harlem. Now they would like

(01:13:54)

more. I totally understand and I am with them. We worked with them in recent years to do three really important districts, really identifying those social justice and civil rights connections. And the 158 houses — they still want to get them into a historic district. I am just saying, okay. Would

(01:14:13)

you be willing to be a loud voice — I hope, I think you said so in your testimony — about the notion that affordable housing versus landmarking is not a good scenario, and that we feel they go together, that you can have affordable housing and it can be landmarked? Is that something that you would talk about?

(01:14:29)

I think so, because I do not like that scenario. I do not have a simple answer for that but I do think that the preservation of affordable units is important. I also think that it is really important that we create new housing as well. So I think it is both, and I think that we need to think about how we can add new housing in historic districts as well.

(01:14:51)

Okay, because I will tell you, in some cases people think that you are destroying communities if you have a landmarking or historic district, and I totally disagree with that.

(01:15:03)

On a plaque program — that is obviously something Barbara Diament has been doing for years. I have a bill in this Council that would love to have more plaques on buildings to designate historic, cultural or architectural significance. Is that something that you would support? Do you have any

(01:15:23)

thoughts about that? Yes, well, the New York Landmarks Preservation Foundation has a plaque program, and other organizations have plaque programs as well. To steal a pun from our general counsel, we are mindful of plaque buildup on some buildings — we do not want to have multiple plaques. But there are a lot of places that have no plaques at all.

(01:15:45)

Our staff approves them and we help with the text of the plaque and other information, but otherwise individual property owners come to us all the time and we approve

(01:16:04)

plaque placements regularly. You probably talked about this earlier, but is there a backlog? How long does it take if a building comes to you and there is a proposal for designation? Obviously if there are

(01:16:17)

concerns, as there are with the church, that is different. But for a normal case... I live in a historic district. My district office is in the historic district. If I could landmark the interior of my house I would make that a landmark inside, but I was told I could not do that. I renovated it right back to 1896 and there is nothing different from how it looked in 1896 — all the details and

(01:16:38)

everything. So my question is, what is the backlog? If somebody wants a designation or hopes for a designation, how long does it take? I mean, obviously on average.

(01:16:50)

Yeah, I would not say that we have a backlog. For the actual designation process, from the calendaring to the designation, we have been moving quite efficiently. Usually an individual landmark takes three to six months and a district probably somewhere between four months and a year, which is well below what the law requires us to do, in terms of

(01:17:16)

you know, something...

(01:17:17)

what we have prioritized. We are constantly studying buildings across the City. We do not have an application process for designations, so there is not necessarily a measurable time between, say, if somebody puts in a request for evaluation to when we actually designate something, if it merits designation, because there is a lot of process around what we are prioritizing. We are trying to also really look at equitable designations across all five boroughs. So something may merit designation but we do not necessarily prioritize it at a given time.

(01:17:55)

So it is not really measurable. Yes. Okay. Thank

(01:17:59)

you very much. I am going to make sure that church survives. Thank you. I only have two more questions. Okay.

(01:18:15)

LPC has designated some historic sites that have unremarkable aesthetic features, such as the James Baldwin House, while on the other side refusing to act on sites of great historic significance for certain communities because they lack high architectural distinction, such as St. Elizabeth Church on the Upper East Side. Does not the requirement that some historical sites have high architectural distinction while not requiring the same of others illustrate that LPC standards are, at the very least, subjectively applied?

(01:18:49)

I think it is an important question. The James Baldwin House I think is an incredibly important designation. While it is not architecturally distinguished, it does reflect the time that James Baldwin lived there. He purchased the property when it was basically a row house that was converted to a multi-family house and stripped at a certain point, so it reflects the time that he purchased the property. He lived there, his family lived there, he talked about the property being important to him. Because it has this strong connection to him and his productive time, we felt it met our criteria for designation and was an important designation to reflect Black history and also LGBT history.

(01:19:39)

To me that is an important designation on the Upper West Side. I understand when we do not for church buildings or for religious institution buildings — you know, they are often quite lovely buildings and so we do have a higher standard for those buildings. We do not necessarily prioritize as many religious institutions for designations. It is hard to compare the two buildings but I think that the James Bond... we do not designate many buildings related to a person, and to us that was a very important designation.

(01:20:27)

...ended with 11 years since you joined. I found that the public is more or less skeptical of the LPC's decisions. I love New York and I love New Yorkers and I think there is a healthy skepticism for everything that happens in the City. I think that we have an outsized impact in the City. There is an outsized interest in New York City's historic buildings. People care a lot about the places they live and what they look like. So...

(01:20:59)

...changed much, but I welcome all kinds of opinions. You are indeed a group of diverse opinions.

I would like to thank you for joining us today and providing your testimony. You are now excused. I will now open up the floor to the public for comments. If you wish to speak, please fill out the appearance card with the Sergeant at Arms and wait to be recognized. We ask that you please limit your comments to two minutes and if you have a written statement please provide a copy of that statement to the Sergeant at Arms. Sean Casady, Mister Tyron... okay, thank you.

(01:22:22)

I am going to go from the left to the right. You can start.

Good morning, Council Members and Chair Ong. My name is Frampton Tolbert. I am the Executive Director of the Historic Districts Council, the citywide advocacy organization for New York's historic neighborhoods. We collaborate with and represent more than 500 community partner organizations, helping preserve the places that matter to them.

On the nomination of Lisa Kersavage as Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission: I have worked with the nominee for many years in her role at the LPC as well as other institutions such as the Municipal Arts Society and Friends of the Upper East Side. We think this role does require formal preservation knowledge and experience and we are pleased to see someone with that experience nominated. We look forward to working with the Chair to further preservation across the City, especially in communities that have been overlooked or less invested in by the LPC.

We urge the City Council to make sure that the LPC is carrying out its duty to designate the places that matter. In the previous mayoral administration, designations fell dramatically and we lost significant places like the Pennsylvania Hotel and 270 Park Avenue, to name just two, that could have been retained and repurposed for housing or other uses. We also ask that the LPC provide more transparency and decision making around its equity framework, which aims to ensure fair representation in New York City's diverse history. There are many communities that still do not feel their neighborhoods have been adequately represented in the landmark designations — East Harlem, East New York, Parkchester, Astoria, the Lower East Side and Bayside, to name just a few.

Finally, I would ask that the City Council work with the LPC so that preservation is part of the solution for the housing crisis in New York City. This includes both the preservation of existing housing — the numerous historic apartment buildings and tenements — as well as new housing. The LPC has approved numerous proposals for conversion of housing and new housing in historic districts. We have only scratched the surface on what could be possible. Thank you for consideration of our remarks and we look forward to our continued work with the LPC in preserving New York City.

(01:24:26)

Good morning, Commissioners and Council Members. Sean Grisanti for Landmark West. Over the years we have had the pleasure of working with Lisa in her prior roles across a variety of landmarks issues. With Lisa, the City has an experienced official who understands the intricacies and flexibility of the landmarks law and can begin work on day one. While her knowledge of the entire New York City landmarks process is extensive, her ability to respond to special circumstances and preservation issues with extraordinary skill makes her an exceptional candidate.

We have witnessed her commitment to addressing vulnerable buildings. The most vulnerable in New York landmarks is West Park Presbyterian Church. We are confident that upon analysis of the facts, the reality of this self-imposed hardship will be clear to the Commission. Lisa has also worked to recognize underrepresented communities and typologies. We all know that landmark status cannot only stabilize the community and protect affordability but also bring socioeconomic benefits. It is important that underrepresented stories continue to be told.

The West Side is home to a cacophony of architectural styles and typologies and diverse histories, many unprotected. We have significant sites of urban renewal including the Amsterdam Houses, among the first post-war housing in Manhattan, the site first acquired via eminent domain in order to clear the historically Black and Puerto Rican neighborhood of San Juan Hill. Under the current White House administration, modernism is under attack. Despite having numerous modern structures within our boundary, one of the country's most significant modernist campuses, Lincoln Center, is also unprotected. We have extant model tenements that bear witness to the evolution of housing reforms in the City, not protected. And the first of its typology — 165 architect C.B.J. Snyder's first use of the H-plan for public schools, which became the citywide standard — not protected. Despite success, there is still so much work to do to see designations that bear and reflect the true breadth of our diverse, dense and deserving neighborhood.

(01:26:18)

Lisa Kersavage possesses all the characteristics required for the Chair: her expertise, enthusiasm, intelligence and objectivity. We look forward to working with her and the agency to achieve our mutual goals.

Good morning, Chair Ong and Committee Members. My name is Peg Breen, President of the New York Landmarks Conservancy. We are a 53-year-old preservation organization that works to save the City's...

(01:26:44)

...architectural heritage through advocacy, loans, grants and technical help to the owners of historic properties. Through the years we have loaned and granted almost $63 million for preservation work. I am pleased to support the nomination of Lisa Kersavage as Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. As you have heard, she comes with a deep background in preservation and has served at the Commission. She has worked to make its rules and applications more user-friendly and to ensure that buildings and places important to the City's diverse communities are represented in designations.

As you know, this is an important position. When your predecessors at the City Council passed the City's landmarks law, they noted it was designed to protect the City's history and identity. But they also said preservation would be important to the City's economy, and it has been. An economic study we commissioned found that preservation provides some 9,000 local jobs and paychecks of over $500 million a year. Heritage tourism is a key component of our visitor industry. Preservation also has a role to play in our housing needs. The Commission routinely approves new buildings in appropriate historic districts and supports the conversion of commercial and civic buildings into housing.

While the number of landmark buildings and districts is impressive, historic districts still take up less than 5% of the City's land. I included a handy map to go with my testimony. So historic districts are not hampering housing production and there are buildings and neighborhoods that still deserve to be designated. We look forward to working with Lisa as the Commission continues to protect our heritage and our economy. Thank you.

(01:28:26)

Good morning, Chair Ong and Committee Members. My name is Zeynep Theron, Director of Preservation at Friends of the Upper East Side, an independent nonprofit founded to protect the legacy, livability and sense of place of the Upper East Side. We are especially proud of Lisa Kersavage's long-standing connection to Friends, serving as Executive Director from 1999 to 2004. We support her appointment as Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. With over a decade at the LPC she has deep knowledge of the agency, its policies and the historic built environment.

We also urge attention to pressing preservation challenges, especially in Yorkville, where development pressure heightened by the Second Avenue Subway threatens its human scale and immigrant-rooted character. Over the past decade, Friends has submitted 36 requests for evaluation. But timely landmark designations remain difficult for at-risk sites. We encourage the City Council to examine the LPC's evaluation criteria in light of recent losses such as St. Elizabeth of Hungary Church, built in 1893, and the Dolger Building, built in 1930. Despite new research, neither was designated. St. Elizabeth's has been demolished now and the Dolger Building faces a similar fate. These cases highlight the need for a faster, more responsive process before such irreversible losses occur.

With designation rates declining, particularly in Manhattan, there is an opportunity to strengthen the LPC and reverse that trend. Friends will continue to advocate for expanded protections on the Upper East Side, including new historic districts near Third Avenue. We look forward to working with her to advance preservation, secure new designations in Yorkville and protect the Upper East Side's historic fabric. Thank you.

(01:30:48)

Everyone, I would like to call next Julius Saltzman. Come on, folks. Please, yes.

(01:31:12)

Good morning, Chair Ong and Council Members. My name is Ward Dennis. I have worked as a historic preservation professional for 30 years and I teach in the Historic Preservation Program at the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment at the Pratt Institute. I am here to speak enthusiastically in support of Lisa Kersavage's nomination for Chair.

I have known Lisa for most of my time working in the historic preservation field. I first met her when she was a graduate student at Columbia. We had the opportunity to work closely with her about 10 years later when she was a Crest Fellow at the Municipal Arts Society and I was a member of Community Board One in Brooklyn at the time of the 2005 Greenpoint-Williamsburg waterfront rezoning. Working with Lisa, the community board was able to understand the impact of the rezoning on our historic industrial fabric and to effectively advocate for the designation of the Eberhard Faber Pencil Factory Historic District. Lisa and MAS also helped us work with industrial tenants faced with displacement as a result of the rezoning.

Since taking on the role of Executive Director at the LPC, I have had the pleasure of working with Lisa on a few occasions as part of the agency's efforts to designate historic buildings. Lisa has always shown an understanding and empathy for property owners, community members and stakeholders. Throughout her career, Lisa has worked at the nexus of preservation, sustainability and affordability. She has a deep knowledge of preservation and of our City and I am confident that she will continue this record leading the LPC under this administration. Lisa is a remarkable public servant and I am pleased to support her nomination to be the next Chair of the LPC.

(01:33:05)

Good morning, Chair Ong and members of the Committee. I am Judith Saltzman, an architect and preservationist, and I am pleased to be here today to enthusiastically endorse the appointment of Lisa Kersavage as Chair of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

I have known Lisa for over two decades and have admired her unwavering dedication to our City, its past and its future. Lisa has a profound understanding of how preservation connects to City issues, its importance, its complexity and the need for collaborative decision making. I worked closely with Lisa when she served as the Senior Director of Preservation and Sustainability at the Municipal Arts Society, when I was Co-Chair of the Preservation Committee.

Lisa's work at MAS on preservation and climate change is a superb example of her capacity to initiate dialogue among multidisciplinary professionals, resulting in shared success. Commencing with concerns from our committee that City policy regarding sustainability favored demolition and new construction over restoration and improvement of existing older buildings, Lisa organized a series of eight roundtables with experts in a range of fields in urban sustainability. The goal of finding common ground with preservation was very successfully achieved.

Lisa's extensive professional experience with significant New York City-based civic organizations, coupled with her 11 years at the Commission, provides her with the perfect background to serve as Chair. Working with committees, boards, regulators and stakeholders on complex issues, Lisa has exhibited an outstanding ability to draw people of different viewpoints into intelligent and productive dialogue and attain successful outcomes. Astute, highly motivated and professional, Lisa has established the delicate equilibrium of passion and practicality. Please endorse her appointment as Chair. Thank you all for your...

(01:35:09)

...testimony. Are there any other members of the public who wish to testify? Okay, great. The public hearing on these nominees is now closed. I would like again to thank the nominee, the members of the public, my colleagues and the...