Remarks by Natalya Zernitskaya
61 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 3
Thank you. So are we allowed to, I understand the Landmarks Commission minutes are in this packet. Are we allowed to ask questions about those as well?
Thank you. So I noticed that the Landmarks Commission meeting minutes states that the commissioner discussion included, quote, state of California designations and exclusion from consideration if the owner disagrees with designation. Does that mean that whether or not the owner of the property disagrees or agrees with the designation, that particular opinion should be excluded from consideration when weighing whether or not to designate a property as a landmark?
And the minutes also stated that the majority of commissioners also agreed that the property, quote, does not appear to have a cultural relationship to the neighborhood or the city. Is a cultural relationship to the neighborhood or city required for landmarking?
Got it. About not there isn't a minimum number of criterion that would need to be met in order there's only one criterion that's required out of the six one or more criterion is required for designation by the landmarks commission or the city council on appeal so if the body that is deliberating finds that at least one criterion is met they may, they have the option to designate it a landmark, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you.
Okay, yeah. So because the language was may, and so that seems, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems kind of conditional and not trying to prejudge anything. Okay. And then, sorry, two more questions for staff. So the Landmarks Commission staff report disagrees with the outside consultant's assessment regarding the integrity of material, integrity of workmanship, and integrity of feeling, primarily due to the condition of the subject property. How would or how does the property condition factor into whether a property meets criterion for designation?
And I guess kind of to build on that a little bit, because property condition was mentioned pretty extensively and a lack of replacement materials or things seem to be replaced. So if replacement materials need to be used to repair, rehabilitate a property. Does that factor into the consideration of whether the current integrity of materials remains intact? And if it were landmarked and needed to be rehabilitated, would new materials of substantively similar style and type be able to be used or would someone have to find an old home that's being demolished and reuse the wood from that or…
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I'm fully understanding. So the representative of the Landmarks Commission noted that the findings in the minutes don't the the findings that are reflected in the minutes don't appear to
Okay, so if that needs to be amended, then would that be up to the Landmarks Commission, or does that not factor into...
Okay, and if we were to make other findings that the staff report was. not accurate with regard to the integrity aspect, even whether or not that factors into the criterion, are we able to make that clarification?
And then, so is the question of whether to landmark, is it only applicable to the primary house or does it apply to other structures on the property as well?
Okay, yeah. I mean, the smaller structures, since they were built after the fact and don't really relate to the main house, I don't think that they should be included if we were to landmark.
And if a property is landmark, does that only apply to the exterior? So if this this. Structure is landmarked does it mean that the applicant could do basically whatever they want with the interior but the exterior has to remain relatively yes because it's not available to the public I mean there there are provisions if there's a milzak contract it's still governed by oh
I just wanted to make sure I understand the motion. Is it for the entire parcel or just the the property, the single the structure?
So the applicant would still be able to read to potentially redevelop those with a like still having to go to Landmarks Commission just for a design review.
Okay. Sorry one quick correction earlier when I was disclosing the ex parte I accidentally said the name of somebody from Animal rescue because there's multiple Ruth Ann. So I got a text from Ruth Ann layer or not seconda All right. Thank you.
Do we have to wait until Council Member Snell leaves the room? Sorry, was there an adjournment?
I'd be happy to. Great. The city of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangar. With great respect, the city acknowledges the Gabrieleno Tongva as the first people of this ancestral and unceded territory of Curavanga, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleno descendants who are part of the Gabrieleno Tongva tribes. We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyom, guests, we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to…
Sorry, question. Was that also to move the special agenda items prior to general public comment? Yes.
Okay, I believe Councilmember Hall is going to read the next proclamation.
No, I mean, please stay. He deeply misses local government.
One of the greatest parts of being here at the Coliseum is the fact that it's such an iconic building.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Are you ready to vote? Could you restate it for the record?
I voted no because of the additional amendment to ask staff to do the research of how we could effectively spot zone. I feel like it gives folks false hope that we're going to be able to reduce the number of parcels impacted, and as this is a temporary upzoning or downzoning effectively from what is currently allowed, I would prefer for staff to use their time on more pressing matters. Thank you.