Stop treating Glazenwood as historic

Whoa, Laurie! I don't know who may have said the City's designation of Glazenwood as a historic district in 1989 was based on "one person's opinion," but it was not me.

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, 210-219)

This topic was also discussed in the LTE, "Disagree with letter writer," published in today's Daily Journal.

City staff made it clear at the February information session that they could find no City Council resolution designating Glazenwood a historic district. You don’t need to be an attorney to recognize how problematic that is—regardless of whether you support or oppose historic status for Glazenwood.

Yes, for the most part only academic “architectural historians” prepare district nominations, and it’s their counterparts at the State office who review them. Yet these same State historians approve every nomination they receive—no exceptions. A perfect case in point is the Sunset Headquarters Building, which was first heard on Friday, May 9th. I encourage you to listen to that hearing: you’ll hear how the property's concerns were dismissed, no independent fact‐checking of assertions by these "historians," before the site was declared “eligible.” Such one‐sided processes breed contempt—and, carried too far, will ultimately undermine the very credibility of historic preservation.

It’s worth remembering, too, that every additional listing triggers CEQA review and strengthens the market for CEQA consultants—ironically, the very niche Ms. Heitter claims as her specialty. In today’s climate of public indifference to conflicts of interest, we can’t afford to let opaque procedures continue unchecked. The OHP hearing for the Sunset Building should be posted soon—keep an eye on https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21754 for the video.

Good morning, Laurie

In my post yesterday, I asked, “… if there is anyone who can make a definitive determination about Glazenwood's status?” My “research” showed that San Mateo’s Historic Building Survey in 1989 identified Glazenwood as a historic district. As you pointed out, that designation has been included in several City documents since then. Did the City’s initial designation include input from the folks most affected by the 1989 survey, i.e. residents of Glazenwood? You noted the City’s 1989 report said Glazenwood was “eligible” for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and that a state official agreed Glazenwood was indeed “eligible.” Help me out… it appears Glazenwood has only been designated as historic by the City of San Mateo. Is that correct?

Ms. Heitter’s letter is a textbook example of twisting the facts. The State Historic Preservation Office does not “approve” survey reports—they merely assess eligibility, a determination that was never made for Glazenwood. Likewise, the term “those located in the ‘Downtown Historic District’” plainly does not include Glazenwood—unless one is willing to contort the ordinance language beyond all reason.

I urge you to defer to San Mateo City staff, who have found no evidence that the City Council ever resolved to designate Glazenwood as historic. If an error occurred, it’s unfortunate for homeowners who remodeled under the assumption that Department of Interior standards applied, but that confusion underscores exactly why clarity—not conjecture—is essential.

Fun fact, GC: Glazenwood is very proud of their historic designation. They have found no onerous rules in caring for their historic homes over the years. If you are interested in learning the truth, you can go to the San Mateo Heritage Alliance website to see the full survey.

Per Andrew: "You are correct: California law allows City staff to, without any democratic or due process, declare literally *anything* to be historic under the California Environmental Quality Act. In this case, the City is relying on the results of the 1989 survey, which is basically just one person's opinion, to set policy. I don't think that's fair or just. The City ordinance around historic resources says that in order to be a historic district, either the Council must pass a law (as they did with the Downtown Historic District) or the district must be made "officially historic" through a formal process such as the National Register of Historic Places (this is the what the SMHA is attempting to do in Baywood, for example). Just to be clear, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not Glazenwood is "actually historic." I do strongly believe, however, that due, democratic process should be used and that the people of Glazenwood -- and San Mateo at large -- deserve a say, and City staff is unjustly denying Glazenwood homeowners their property rights."