HomeMy WebLinkAbout1536 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1536 Howard Avenue
Item No. 8a
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: July 13, 2020
Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc.
Property Owner: Michael Glynn
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 028-291-090
Lot Area: 7,694 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
constructed or converted under this exception.
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated December 30,
2019. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1536 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually
eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and
detached garage and build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The total proposed
floor area would be 3,678 SF (0.47 FAR), where 3,785 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed house. Two off-street parking spaces are required, one
of which must be covered. The proposed detached garage would provide one covered parking space (10' x 20'-
2" clear interior dimensions) and an uncovered parking space (9' x 20') would be provided in the driveway
leading to the garage. The proposed project complies with all other zoning district regulations.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Staff notes that this application includes creating a new 790 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the
new detached garage. Per State law, review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by
the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the recently adopted State
legislation regarding ADUs.
The most recent updates to State law regarding ADU regulations became effective January 1, 2020 (California
State Government Code Sections 65862.2 and 65862.22). This state legislation supersedes the City's
regulations for ADUs as outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 — Accessory Dwelling Units. Among those
regulations is an exemption from both lot coverage and FAR for ADUs that are 800 SF or less in size. Therefore,
this proposed detached ADU did not count towards the overall lot coverage or FAR for this project.
The applicant is requesting the following application:
■ Design Review for a two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.01 (a) (1)).
Design Review 1536 Howard Avenue
1536 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 7,694 SF Plans date stam ed: Jul 1, 2020
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Fronf Setback (1st flr): 20'-4" 20'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): 23'-5" 20'-4" (block average)
�
Side Setback (left): 4'-8" 4'-0"
(right): 11'-0" 4'-0"
i
Rear Setback (1st flr): 75'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 77'-0" 20'-0"
_ ...... ............................................._... .................�....................................................._._...._..._..............................................................................................................
Lot Coverage: 2,271� SF ; 3,078 SF
30 /o i 40 /o
_ ...� ................................................ ..... ............. . .. ;................................ ..
FAR: 3,678 SF ' 3,785 SF'
0.48 FAR 0.49 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
1 covered 1 covered
(10' x 20'-2" clear interior (10' x 20')
Off-Street Parking: dimensions)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_ .................................................. ......................................:....................................................._..............................................................................................................._.. _.._......_
Building Height: 28'-1" 30'-0"
_ .....................................
Declining Height Envelope: complies C.S. 25.26.075
' (0.32 x 7,694 SF) + 1,100 SF + 223 SF = 3,785 SF (0.49 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: fiberglass, aluminum clad wood casement, and wood trim.
• Doors: wood front door and wood garage door.
• Siding: hardy wood horizontal siding and board and batten vertical siding.
• Roof: asphalt shingles.
• Other: stone veneer chimney, wood columns.
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 27, 2020,
the Commission had several comments regarding this project and voted to refer this project to a design review
consultant (see attached April 27, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes). A discussion of the analysis of the
revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section.
The architect submitted a response letter dated June 30, 2020, and revised plans, date stamped July 1, 2020, to
address the Planning Commission's questions and comments. Please refer to the April 27, 2020 Planning
Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission questions and comments.
Listed below is a summary of the Commission's comments.
-2-
Design Review
• Address drafting inconsistencies on renderings and drawings.
• Revisit window muntin details and patterns.
• Revisit porch height.
• Resolve siding and window details on all elevations.
• Revisit rear deck design.
• Revisit second story rear balcony design and explore roof line over balcony.
• Provide articulation on left side elevation, appears long and plain.
1536 Howard Avenue
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project
architect and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed the
revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, date stamped June
5, 2020, for a detailed review of the project.
Listed below are revisions made by the architect (please refer to the attached meeting minutes, the design
consultant's recommendation, and the designer's response letter for a detailed list of the Commission comments
and the architects plan revisions).
• Detail added to clarify materials on elevations.
• Window details consistent on all elevations.
• Revisited roof lines and roofing materials.
• Reduced and relocated rear second story balcony.
• Reduced first floor plate line from 10'-0" to 9'-6", reducing the front porch height to 9'-0"
• Revised left side elevation to provide more articulation.
In summary, the design review consultant is recommending approval of the proposed project, noting that the new
design meets the requirements of the residential design guidelines".
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the new house
(featuring a variety of materials including aluminum clad wood casement windows, a wood front door and wood
garage door, hardy wood horizontal siding on first floor / vertical board and batten on second floor, and asphalt
shingle) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; that the proposed project includes a detached
garage at the rear of the property, which is consistent with the garage patterns within the neighborhood; that the
articulation provides visual interest on all elevations and the architectural elements of the proposed structure
compliments the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are
placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the
proposed landscaping, include new shrubs and trees to be planted throughout the site, are proportionate to the
mass and bulk of the structure. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
-3-
Design Review
1536 Howard Avenue
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
July 1, 2020, sheets A.0 through L1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would include
. adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition
or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a
building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect
or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
-4-
Design Review
1536 Howard Avenue
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural
certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building
Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been build according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Michelle Markiewicz
Associate Planner
c. Jack Chu, applicant and designer
Attachments:
April 27, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter, dated June 30, 2020
Design Reviewer's Recommendation, dated June 5, 2020
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 2, 2020
Area Map
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated December 30, 2019
-5-
CITY �
� �'
_ �;'� uai
'ryc. �ti
0
����vowary
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, April 27, 2020 7:00 PM Online
b. 1536 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Jack Chu, Chu Design
applicant and designer; Michael Glynn, property owner) (112 noticed)
Michelle Markiewicz
a new, two-story
Associates Inc.,
Staff Contact:
All Commissioners have visited the projecf site. Chair Comaroto nofed that she had a conversation with
the property owner less than a year ago about the projecf. Commissioner Sargent noted that he spoke to
fhe neighbor to the left of the property. Commissioner Gaul a/so noted that he spoke with the neighbor
across the street at 1541 Howard Avenue about the project.
Planning Manager Hurin, provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.�
> When this project comes back for action, can we request that ha/f size drawings be provided as
opposed to these 11" x 17" size sheets? (Hurin: We can work with the designer to get the proper size
plans submitted.)
> Not that this project is considered a historic home, isn't this in a district where we are required to have
a historical report? (Hurin: Correct. The report was prepared, but may not have been included in your
packef. It will be provided to you for fhe next meeting. The report came back fhat this property is not
eligible for listing in the California or National Register.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Barry Brown and Jack Chu, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Can you tell us which takes precedence, the rendering or fhe drawings that we're looking at? There are
a number of details that are inconsistent befween the two. (Brown: Well, as far as the conceptual design,
it's represenfed with the rendering. ln working together with the architect, we're building the design
development package to be in sync with each other.)
> Some of the comments will then be based on the rendering in comparison to the drawings. One of the
things that seem to be inconsistent is the window muntin patterns. There's a range of patterns and styles
shown on the front elevation and around the house. Please clarify your intent with those muntin patterns .
(Brown: We are looking at using a fiberg/ass window product that has a variety of different configurations
in a black color. As far as the consistency, the design team can work together to come up with a
consistent window theme that matches both the conceptual and the design development drawings.)
> Is there a landing outside fhe entry to the mud room? It seems like the mud room is at the same floor
level as the entry foyer, but the foyer is five steps above grade, not sure whaYs happening on the side
elevations. (Brown: The finished floor is roughly 18" or so above the grade in the front. There was a slight
difference between the front elevation and the rear elevafion, buf not very much. So you're probably
correct there should be one or two sfeps off the mud room to meet the finish grade of fhe driveway there.)
> There are a number of drafting inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
> What roofing materials are you using, shingle or sheet metal standing seam like what was shown in
City of Burlfngame page q Printed on 8/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 27, 2020
the renderings? (Brown: IPs a conceptual rendering. The design is an asphalt shingle roof style.) Is it
throughout? (Brown: Yes.)
> Is the horizonta/ siding going to be a Hardie board or wood? Are you going to do corner board trims
as shown in the elevations? (Chu: It will be Hardie board siding with corner boards; the corner boards will
be lighter color than ihe Hardie board siding.)
> Are you proposing cab/e wire railings af the front and on the rear deck? (Brown: Those are actually a
horizontal steel balcony railing, nof cable steel. So it will Be a metal product fhroughout.)
> If looks like the front room roof goes up then goes back down and drains into the second floor just
past the firsf chimney. Are you concerned about wafer or leaves getting trapped there? The applicant
should consider that and when the projecf returns fhey can come up with an answer. (Brown: Is the
concern water dropping from the second story roof onto the first level roof above the living room area? We
expect that the final design will include rain gutters at least at the lower level, if not bofh upper and lower
level.) If the ridge is at the middle of the chimney, there's probably fhree or four feet of sloped roof going
back info the building. Usually you're sloping away rafher than sloping info. (Hurin: The applicant can take
that into consideration as part of your comments.) (Brown.� To clarify the comment, you're concerned with
the water flowing to the back of the chimney?) Where fhe circular window is located, there's going to be a
V-groove where leaves and water are going fo get trapped. (Brown: The design team and the owner can
think about reconfiguring that to avoid that type of water entrapment against the building. )
> What is the plate height on fhe fronf porch? (Chu: The plate height of the front porch is 9'-5 ".)
> How is the second floor siding configured? Is it 1" x 2" battens over Hardie sheets? If looked just like
horizontal lap siding turned vertical. (Brown: IYs a traditional board and batten siding where the vertical
board is 8", 10" 12" wide and the battens are the 3 1/2" wide vertical pieces that cover the seam between
the boards.) P/ease clarify fhe size of the battens and how far apart they are when it comes back for
review.
> There are inconsistencies between the renderings and fhe elevations, specifically the exterior sidings .
WhaYs the reasoning behind changing the direction of the siding to the board and baften on the upper
floor? (Brown: It adds a more confemporary line to what is generally somewhat of a traditional and maybe
less interesting building style. You'll see this in many California confemporary styles. It's a mixture of
horizontal and vertical to accentuate certain aspects of the massing of the house and to add a bit of
variefy.) Please clarify and tighten up the differences on the rendering versus the elevations.
> Is there a way that you can bring the chimney up at the family room and make it look like a traditional
chimney? (Brown: 1 believe thaYs a direcf vent.) In my opinion, it looks like it has just been cut off and
there's no reason you couldn't Bring that chimney up fhrough the eve and direct vent it straight up.
> There's a detail for boxed eave, are the eaves going to be boxed in? (Brown: Yes, it is going to be a
boxed eave.) Your elevations are showing rafter tails all around, so that's going to change the look of the
house. If you can clean that up, fhat would be helpful.
> What material would you be using for the driveway? (Brown: We're thinking of a concrete paver thaYs
set in a sand base to allow for some pervious drainage, and to have concrefe poured to create a feel of a
broken up plaza on the side of the house.) It would be helpful if you specify that in your drawings.
> Would like to clarify something with staff because we're talking about the rendering not matching the
plans. Is it correct to assume that unless they're included in the plans with a page number it's not a part of
the plans, therefore iYs not going to be included in the building permit sef and as part of the approved
plans? When you're coming back out to verify at the end of fhe project, that whaf's been built matches
what we approved, you're going to be looking at the plans and not the rendering, right? So what they want
to do needs to be on the plan. (Hurin: Yes, thaYs correct. We need to ensure that the building elevations
are correct. The renderings are helpful to visually show what the house will look like in terms of mass and
bulk. However, what ulfimately gefs approved are the building e/evations. The renderings should be
consistent or should match the building elevations.)
> What is the size of the balcony at the rear of the house? (Chu: That balcony is 4' x 28'.)
> The stone veneer at the left side elevation looks out of place, so maybe you can look at that. (Brown:
Are you talking about the stone itself or the patfern?) It is in the midd/e of the wall and I don'f see the
purpose of it being there. If looks a Irttle odd.
> You should take a look af your left elevation window sill heights. Your floor plan shows fhe washer and
dryer up against the window. That laundry room window sill height seems very low and might need to be
City of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 6/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 27, 2020
addressed together with the family room next to it.
> /s fhere a flat area in front of the stairwell window with the roof wrapping around? (Brown: There should
be a flat area, with a minimum s/ope.)
> The second floor plan is missing part of the first floor roof lines.
Public Comments:
> Audrey Gustafson, 1540 Howard Avenue: I would like to request updated drawings and access to the
rendering, am specifically concerned with fhe window alignment.
Chair Comarofo closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> This feels like a half-thought building. There are too many things that don't make sense and don't
seem righi. It siarts with the rendering not matching the elevations, the muntins and the siding. Is it
vertical? Is it horizonfal or does rt have battens? Or is it turning on its side? What looked like cable railing
felt ouf of place. Have seen cable railing porches we have approved recently that don't fit, and the cab/e
rails don't fit this kind of architecture. What kind of architecture is this? It has a patina of traditional
architecture, but if's not fraditional architecture. This is a candidate for a design review consultant for all
the many reasons that all of us have pointed out as we have discussed it and asked questions of the
applicant.
> Adding issues are the porch height, resolving the siding and the window issues. The box eave would
be a rea! mistake on a project like this. The exposed rafter tails help with the detailing and the sca/e on
the project. The roof issues need to be resolved. All in all, it's a good candidate for the design review
consultant process.
> A/so want to add about the design that the Back deck needs to be pulled in on both sides. IYs not
useable space and it's creafing a viewing platform into the neighboring properties which is pretty clear in
our design guidelines thaf iYs not encou�aged. The rail detail needs to be looked at as well.
> Regarding the rear balcony, at four feet deep, whaf is that really doing stretching across the entire
back of the house? There's really no place to put furniture on it. The applicanf inentioned thaf rt serves as
some form of shade for the lower floor, buf it's not really tied in well with that multi-panel patio door below.
Either that can get its own roof line over it or get some other accentuated feature.
> Also need to look at the left side elevation. It just seems long, expansive and plain, it needs to be
broken up a little bit.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer this
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
City of BuAingame page 3 Printed on 8/23/2020
r
Date : June 30, 2020
Subject : Mike Glynn Residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit
Address : 1536 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010
Written Response for Plan Commissioner Comments, Dated April 27, 2020 :
Question of staff :
1. See attached 10 half size sets, I full set and Response to Planning Commission
Comments and I PDF of the plans in CD.
2. Historic home issues are been resolved through Planning.
Commission Questions/ Comments :
1. We don't have any color rendering for this project. The Landscape Architect will
remove the rendering on his drawings.
2. See all revised windows on sheet A.3- A.7. provide a window and doors schedules
on sheet A.8.
3. See landing on sheet A.3, Proposed First floor plan.
4. See all revised floor plan on sheet A.3 and A.4.
5. See elev�tion sheet on A.S, A.6 and A.7. Roofing materials shall be (Class A)
Asphalt Shingle roof through out. The Accessory will have same roofing materials.
6. See elevations callout for the Horizontal Hardie-trim 7.25" width 4/4 Smooth
"Arctic Wl�aite" color boards at all first floor elevation and Board and Baden exterior
finish at second floor. See sheet A.S, A.6 and A.7.
7. See 1/2" diameter horizontal railing at second floor balcony off master suite on sheet
A.6.
8. See revised second floor plan on sheet A.4. Adding new bathroom next to bedroom
#2 resolve the roof drainage issues. Also see sheet A.3, removes the fireplace and
chimney at family room at first floor.
9. The porch shall be 9'-0" max. in height.
10. The second floor Board and Baden shall be spacing at 16" on center.
11. We remove the rendering. So, please use elevation on sheet A.S, A.6 and A.7.
12. We took out the fire place in the Family room. See revised drawings on sheet A.3.
13. The eave details shall be open with rafter tails end all around. This will applied on
Accessory Dwelling unit .
14. The proposed driveway shall be Stone Paver.
15. No Rendering shall be provided for this project. Please use elevation on sheet A.S,
A.6 and A.7.
16. we have down-sized the rear balcony off master suite on second floor.
17. See revised sheet A.6 Left side elevation. I have revised the laundry room
windows to match with all bathroom windows.
18. The flat area at the stairwell windows with roof wrapping around shall have
minimum slope of 1/2" per foot slope draining away from house.
19. See second floor plan with first floor roof lines on sheet A.4.
Written Response for Public Comments :
My Client, Mr. Mick Glynn already contact the neighbor at 1540 Howard Ave.
Written Response for Commission Discussion/ Direction :
This project was refer to Design Review Consultant, Ms. Jeanne Davis and we have
resolve all the design related issues :
1. The exterior materials, shall be horizontal 7.25" wide Hardie-Trim smooth board
with "Arctic White " color.
2. Lower the first floor plate line from 10'-0" down to 9'-6". This will lower the
porch to 9'-0"height.
3. The eave detail will have rafter tails end through out of entire main residence as
well as Accessory Dwelling Unit.
4. The rear Balcony off master bedroom will be down size and relocated see sheet A.5
Rear elevation.
5. Revised second floor to break up the mass of long wall. See sheet A.6 for the
updated Left side elevation.
DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
June 5, 2020
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Address: 1536 Howard Avenue
Applicant and Designer: Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc.
Landscape Designer: Barry Brown, UDLA
Property Owner: Michael Glynn
Planner: Michelle Markiewicz
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by the Designer, Jack Chu, to the
Planning Commission for 1536 Howard Avenue. I listened to the Planning Commission's
comments in the meeting video from the April 27, 2020, Study Session. I reviewed the Planning
Commission's comments with the Owner, Designers and Planner over zoom in addition to
providing feedback on subsequent iterations. The design submitted reflects the following
changes in response to Planning Commission feedback:
REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN
• Reduced first floor plate height from 10-0" to 9'-6". Note: During the hearing the applicant
incorrectly stated that the proposed porch plate height was at 9'-6" when in fact it is an
extension of the first floor plate plus the several inches that the finished floor steps down
from the house to porch. Typically, the Planning Commission requests a maximum 9'-0"
first floor plate height. Given the lack of specific direction and miscommunication around
the originally proposed plate height, the applicant is proposing to conform with the 9'-6"
plate height mentioned in the hearing.
• Coordinated drawings corrected to show three risers from Porch, Mud Room landing and
rear deck to grade. Eliminated cable railing at Porch as not needed where grade change is
less than 30 inches.
• Added Upper and Lower Roof Plans on Sheet A.4.
• Massing adjusted on second floor rooms facing street to address drainage concerns
around Living Room roof.
• Reduced size of second floor Master Bedroom Balcony to 36 SF.
Page 1
• Organized architectural elements on rear elevation to improve massing and alignments.
• Massing articulated along left side to break up flat second story wall.
• Added horizontal and vertical siding product notes along with drawing details like corner
boards, batten spacing, etc. on the Exterior Elevations.
• Family Room fireplace and chimney eliminated. ADU chimney extended above roof eave
similar to proposed Living Room chimney.
• Window/door grids and trim details made consistent throughout house and ADU.
• Laundry Room window sill height coordinated with interior casework.
• Typical eave detail includes exposed rafter tails.
• Drawings coordinated between plans, elevations and schedules to resolve inconsistencies
and clarify what is proposed.
• Driveway material proposed as pervious pavers with concrete edge, see Sheet L-1.0.
• Owner has been in communication with the left side neighbors regarding their concerns
with windows facing their property. At the time of writing this letter, the Owner is waiting
for a response from the neighbors.
• Scalable half-size drawings and Historic Evaluation Report to be provided to Planning
Commissioners.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood
This project is in Burlingame Park, a historic district comprised of traditional single-family
residences of varying styles. This project shares several features in common with other homes
in the neighborhood including pitched roof forms, exposed gable ends, and a front porch. The
majority of homes in Burlingame Park have either stucco or wood siding with wood trim,
wood detailing and asphalt composition shingle roofing. The proposed residence
incorporates similar finishes to those listed above.
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood
This neighborhood has mostly detached garages in the rear of the lot, as does the current and
proposed residence. No change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location.
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
The proposed second story massing is integrated to make the whole house a cohesive design.
Gable elements and windows are aligned where possible. There is modulation along each
elevation to break up the building mass and create scale appropriate to the residential
neighborhood. The mix of materials further breaks up the mass. While the detailing and
finishes are in the modern farmhouse style, the massing and forms fit with the various
traditional styles present. The Planning Commission typically approves plate heights of 8'-0"
over 9'-0". However, a project three houses over at 1548 Howard recently came through the
Planning Commission with existing first floor plate heights noted as 9'-6".
Page 2
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties
This residence is located on Howard between Crescent and EI Camino. The driveway on the
right side creates space with the right side neighbor. The added second floor is weighted
towards the middle of the house to respect the left side neighbor. The Owner is working to
resolve any concern with the left side neighbor regarding proposed window locations. The
deck off the Master Bedroom has been reduced to limit potential for noise intrusion. The roof
ridge peak is almost two feet below the maximum height limit.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Drought tolerant grasses and a new magnolia tree are proposed in the front yard to relate to
the modern farmhouse style house. Three new crape myrtle trees and a privet hedge are
proposed for screening along the left side shared fence in the rear yard.
SUMMARY
I think further discussion is needed around the proposed first floor plate height and confirmation
that the left side windows have been resolved with the neighbors. Aside from those open items, it
is my opinion that the new design meets the requirements of the design guidelines.
The Applicant should also be commended for their willingness to make changes and work within
the design review process.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Davis
Page 3
� ci�ry O
��'�I �:.If ��
,�1 ''-�
�� , �� o
'ry i
c�9>onnr
Z
0
a
�
�
O
�
z
F-
t�
w
�
0
�
a
PLANNING APPLICATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING DIVISION
501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997
TEL; 650.558.7250 � FAX: 650.696.3790 � E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPTna.BURLINGAME.ORG
��— ��'r — G, `� c�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
�1f���1 ��/.��i� ��u �/2.v 0�°�:�ad� �e��B���v�C"� �a��a � l� A.�G-��� f����� ���,��"��
,� ��'� �`�,.L�:�"��,��d:.0 ���4'�'°�.�.,C��'7 �.,Ili' % D
�
Z
0
F=
a
�
�
0
�
z
�
Z
�
J
n.
a
Q
/�°r �r +� ��,��e;t�,�.�'�. ��.«� r'���--�� /� • c�-- �
E•MAIL �-
e _ . rt
���
NAME
ADDRESS
I HEREBY CERTIFY Nb�R PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRU AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND ..� �
y .,..�" �'ys �„ � / '
iy
��i
APPLICANT' 51GNATURE DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY OWNER DATE
I AM AWARE 0�'FH�RR6POSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPUCATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSIO /DIVISIO .
�-�- ,��-- � -� ��-
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS i
I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS I
APPLiCATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE A T E PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING �
OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION rC� (INITIALS Of ARCHITECTIDESIGNER) I
�
J
Z
O
W
�
�
�
u.
Fa-
�
APPLICATION TYPE
�,Zf ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)
I ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
;i � DESIGN REVIEW (DSR)
I❑ HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
❑ VARIANCE (VAR)
❑ WIRELESS
❑ FENCE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER:
❑ MINOR MODIFICATION
❑ SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) DATE RECEIVED:
� .
. � ".
`FOR PROJECT REFUNDS* - Please provide an address to which to all refund checks will be mailed to:
N
a
�
�
C
�
m
O
Z
-rC
�,�.� � � —�,
BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE #
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desi n
Review for a new two-story sinqle family dwellinq at 1536 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Michael Glvnn,
property owner, APN: 028-291-090;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Ju1y 13,
2020, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit
in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three
single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception, is hereby
approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairperson
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 13th dav of July, 2020 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption & Design Review
1536 Howard Avenue
Effective July 23, 2020
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped July 1, 2020, sheets A.0 through L1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staff�;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving
on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed
without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption & Design Review
1536 Howard Avenue
Effective July 23, 2020
Page 2
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this
survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown
on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been build
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL�
Planning Division
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road PH: (650) 558-7250
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
FAX: (650) 696-3790
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on
Mondav, July 13, 2020 at 7:00 P.M.
Project Location: 1536 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 (APN: 028-291-090)
Description: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage.
Pursuant to the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the
Planning Commission meeting will be held via Zoom, a teleconference platform (see below for access
details). The Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the July 13, 2020 Burlingame Planning
Commission meeting.
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/ioin
Meeting ID: 846 2316 9257
Password: 116435
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 846 2316 9257
Password: 116435
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment(a�burlinqame.orq.
Comments submitted during the meeting will be read aloud by staff for the record.
Questions/Comments
If you have any questions about the proposed project or would like to schedule an appointment to view
a hard copy of the application and plans, please contact Michelle Markiewicz, staff planner for the
project, at mmarkiewiczCa�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7255. Written comments on the project may
also be emailed to the staff planner prior to the public hearing. We encourage you to review the
proposed plans for this project online now at www.burlinqame.orq/planninqcommission/aqenda.
Agenda and Staff Reports
The City of Burlingame will publish the meeting agenda at 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2020. The agenda
will be available online at www.burlinqame.orq/planninqcommission/aqenda and will contain the staff
report, related documents, and proposed plans for this application. The agenda will also be posted at
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. A hardcopy of the staff report and related documents
may be obtained upon request to the staff planner (see contact information above).
(please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Accessibility
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals who require special assistance or a
disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability
and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact the Planning Division at
planninqdept(a�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7250, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020. Notification
in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about the notice.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
Mailed: July 2, 2020
QP4 � ,c-.'�� c; ,.� Q �� �� � �
_ sa ",',. p � � � � � �� � p d �4
� �
� D :.�s'f Q � � "v�"� � h" c� '� cJ'�
e _ �C� �Q :i;a?' 7 � 15 tA 'C� � �a
. � p iJ W a q iO
` � G'�� � ,y W G.l C? �
t��'� �'Cd QCa' ��' �=' � � :a � ra �c7Q - �d p� �q �
a- �''� (�Q �.� ��� w p w ta A
� �� � �c� �� � Q �a e�� � ��3 . ��Q Q �� � o�' c c
�
�pG � � L' ca �QQ - ��3L sa c� C'�r�i
�, o�,a da� a Q
� o � c� �
Q p c� d ca c ��Q� �' c�a� �� o
p � [a� C� yra a E7 ��� t� �� t
� � �a a � �
� �� �
a��" � � . . � $
'�+ � .*" ' �� ,--. `�r`a bV �;=7
�r� t7 �� � ` � t� Cja
��' aU�Q � �� � p ta
a
� p �� �� � ` � �bn�
� �a � _
ta ph �' _
'('G� Q c
GS t� � !.
t�n, CU � U � � V ti � �,�
Q ��d� [5,�'r� ta � � �, �� G
cai
, �� ,�� �,�, � � p o.Q �, �p °
'�` ��' � � � ° 4 � �
;r ,�� Q
,
��� � ��4 �'�� 9� b�� �� �� C
, a " a � . � �, � � �
o� � ,�� , �4, � ,
� h
��k.•�� � � � � � �'J' ... �� � � ��
P [ '� Qp � A J'p� - � C� C� �C�
'�� �q �,� `J C�' a0 r3 �d
� qq ,�`� �w �U s'r rs�
• a�` �� ��� �Q
Ce� cL P
�,.v ` � �,�� L-y�' ��`` y3��'` 'y a�lT
� p� pCj a4� nv �C�� � � �P
ara"7 �,�' G t�y�`" p'�U 4� qQ`� �
� `3 �'
�sw p � � �, , w �y�'' y � q°Q �,� �G3�
� � a ;�
� p �� r� a� a� w G qCf3O �c
c� ��� n `a � C� � +ad Gc�u a�� ��G
ta �� pc=, c�� �pa q� QC.0
pb ���b �� Q q�C� �a ����
p�' �i% Q �b ..
�' ' `"� �,. i
� � ` �� a�J Q oti , 9 p� � p
� � � q'�' ��a 43 9�p � r�
� .'h ta`� Q� E� . �CiS��
d �'Q� ���' �'�a o �� ,�0°� a'�� qp51`� o
� O ta q � C> �r
; p �'� �y�� c�� �(.� �;j�Jn ��i41� � � t
a�,,�� �� �, � � � p
Q � ��, � � ��� Q� � �� qa��
eL4 ._ � p c'�v Q�q� Oly p �� �'' p W' 41'� iP y3� J
N �yp w� �
O''r � � �`�t� �� �`� �
O � � c� � �''c�
M O Z tj ���a � p �� �p �y�� �p� �
a ,� �
� «� Q ���in� � . ' � _�,�t�
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #.
HRI #
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer
Date
Page 1 of 12 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 1536 Howard Avenue
P1. Other ldentifier:
*P2. Location: ❑Not for Publication �Unrestricted "a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo. Calif. Date 1999
"c. Address 1536 Howard Avenue City Burlinqame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-291-090
"P3a. DeSCription: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1536 Howard Avenue is a one-story, single-family residence that was built in 1957 in a Minimal Traditional style for Rocco and
Mary Borg. Original building permits for the building are not on file at the Burlingame Building Department, and therefore it is
unknown by whom the building was designed and constructed. 1536 Howard Avenue is located in the Burlingame Park
neighborhood on an approximately 7,680 square-foot rectangular parcel (APN 028-291-090) on the west side of Howard Avenue
between Crescent Avenue and EI Camino Real (Figure 1). The residence is generally rectangular in plan and is set back from the
street by approximately 18 feet. At the front of the building is a small front lawn. A paved driveway along the north property line
leads to a freestanding garage building and a paved and landscaped rear garden. A freestanding toolshed sits in the southwest
corner of the property.
1536 Howard Avenue is a wood-frame building clad primarily in stucco with one section of board-and-batten wood siding and sits
on a concrete foundation. Encircling the house around the foundation and within the eaves are ventilation panels. All fenestration
consists of black powder coated aluminum sash windows. Along the east fa�ade (facing Howard Avenue), the building features a
low hipped roof with shallow eaves.
The east fa�ade of 1536 Howard Avenue is asymmetrical and divided roughly into thirds. The left (south) third projects slightly
towards the street and is clad in stucco with a centered three-panel window. The recessed center and right thirds are clad in a
board-and-batten wood siding and feature four metal-sash windows.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 2)
"P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single-Familv Residence
*P4. Resources Present: OBuilding ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None
PSb. Photo: (view and date)
View of the front facade.
December 17, 2019
�P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Ohistoric
1957 (Assessors estimatel
*P7. Owner and Address:
Michael Glvnn
1536 Howard Avenue
Burlinaame. CA 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Pape & Turnbull. Inc.
170 Maiden Lane. 5"' FI
San Francisco. CA 94108
"`P9. Date Recorded:
12/30/2019
"Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map OContinuation Sheet �Building, Structure, and Object Record
❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record
❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list)
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 2 of 12
*Recorded by Paqe & Turnbull, Inc.
*P3a. Description: (continued)
Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 1536 Howard Avenue
*Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
The north fa�ade of 1536 Howard Avenue is clad entirely in stucco and features a brick chimney that extends through the eave
towards the east side of the fagade (Figure 2). The primary entrance to the building is recessed just west of the chimney and is
reached via four brick steps from the paved driveway to a flush wood door (Figure 3). The remainder of the north fagade has two
groups of windows that have a fixed center panel flanked by casement windows.
The west (rear) fa�ade contains a small pair of slider windows towards the center of the fa�ade and a group of three windows —
one fixed window with two flanking casement windows — to the right (south) side of the fa�ade. This rear fa�ade has a flat
aluminum patio roof on metal supports that extends to the rear from beneath the building's eaves. A rear entrance to the building is
located partway down the south fa�ade and is accessed via iwo steps. This entrance features a storm door over a wood- and
glass-paneled door (Figure 4).
�
� -
r,
�'
}
A�
wb,
.
z <:, . ��' , I � ;.
;. .. ., .: � ;i
Figure 5: South facade, left portion, Figure 6: South facade, right portion, Figure 7: South facade, right
looking east. looking east (toward Howard Avenue). portion, looking west toward
rear of property.
The south fa�ade of 1536 Howard Avenue is separated into finro sections. The first section is located to the left of the rear entrance
and contains a single pair of slider windows (Figure 5). The right portion, which is accessed via a paved path along the south
property line, contains two sets of paired slider windows and some utility boxes and electrical wiring (Figure 6 and Figure 7).
(See Continuation Sheet, page 3)
DPR 523L
Figure 2: North facade, looking
west. Garage visible in
background.
Figure 4: West facade, looking southeast.
Figure 3: Primary
entrance, located on
north facade. Looking
southwest.
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomia�
Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 1536 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
*P3a. Description (continued):
1536 Howard Avenue contains finro freestanding ancillary buildings at the rear of the property that consist of a four-car garage
located along the northern property line, almost to the rear of the lot, and a toolshed adjacent to the south property line (Figure 8).
L� � �'�.� ..* �,.� � '�, �`.�
Figure 8: Birds-eye view of 1536 Howard Avenue.
Lot outlined in dashed line; buildings are shaded yellow.
Source: Google Maps 2019; edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 9: East facade of Figure 10: South facade of the garage
the garage. Looking west. Looking northwest.
�
The wood frame garage building has wood siding, a low hipped roof, and a concrete foundation. It is approximately 22 feet wide
and 40 feet deep. The east faCade has a modern roll-up paneled garage door, and the south fa�ade has a number of openings that
face towards the garden, including two paired slider windows on the left half of the fa�ade, and a glass- and wood-paneled door
and a small double-hung wood sash window to the right of the fa�ade (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The north fa�ade abuts the
property line fence and is not visible. Siding along the rear fa�ade, as well as the paneling along the eaves, has been removed
(Figure 11).
(See Continuation Sheet, page 4)
DPR 523L
Figure 11: Rear (west) facade of the garage.
Looking northeast.
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 4 of 12
*Recorded by Paqe & Turnbull. Inc.
*P3a. Description (continued):
Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 1536 Howard Avenue
*Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
The toolshed is approximately 14 feet wide and 12 feet deep and sits finro feet from the south property line. The wood-frame
building has a low hipped roof and a concrete foundation. The east fa�ade features vertical wood siding and two full-height four-lite
wood frame fixed windows, while the north fa�ade has a single-leaf wood door with multi-lite glass panels. The visible north and
south fa�ades have had their siding removed (Figure 12 and Figure 13).
>
p> � ��, ,� w � �r� � �'t � '�r,� , ' �.
a i).,s�.� �'�RF�..,C� I,MtM � P�7� .��
�� 'Yt iv� � ��%MS'���� �
Figure 15: Rear garden, looking southeast from the
toolshed.
The rear garden has paved concrete paths, grass, and a circular planting area. A wall and archway made of concrete masonry
units cuts the yard in half in line with the garage's east fa�ade. A wood fence with a gate separates the rear yard from the
driveway.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 5)
DPR 523L
Figure 13: North facade of the toolshed. Looking
southwest.
Figure 12: East (left) and north (right) facades of the
toolshed. Looking west.
Figure 14: rear garden, looking northwest from the rear of
the house.
5tate of California —The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 5 of 12 Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 1536 Howard Avenue
"Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
"`P3a. Description (continued):
The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively residential, with one- and two-story single-family homes. The properties immediately
north and south of the subject property on the west side of Howard Avenue, and across from the subject property along the east
side of Howard Avenue, consist of single-family homes clad in stucco, shingles, and asphalt siding with detached garages (see
Figure 16 to Figure 18).
���1� � \ �` °�y ''•? - - � %
� _
�� �'.!� '
• F�� � � - .t
, � - �;- G ,i. �
, .
;�
,;
�� �
�^ i f � ��.
` �.:f'�
�
e �5 � �"�--'' ;
3��_ � ,� ,
sd ��� r^�
�
"�...�c. .-�..—'��� � , ,: �Pi," ,�, ' + � EF
���,,a � _.":ri;6„�„ �,m,. ...d,c� . . �#
.. - '� v.:.: a'X t; B�p...AY
�,�
iyt^ ' 9:
r � �^
�
� Figure 18: East side of Howard Avenue, looking northeast, showing buildings opposite of the subject
building.
DPR 523L
Figure 16: West side of Howard Avenue, looking
southwest; showing buildings south of the subject
building.
a+� t�La � 1 .� sr�.,c ���i $ ,�.. �;� r�, :�ia� r �-i,�w. .xu ,a �.�.�
Figure 17: West side of Howard Avenue, looking west;
showing buildings north of the subject building.
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 6 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
61. Historic name: 1536 Howard Avenue
62. Common name: 1536 Howard Avenue
63. Original Use: Single-Family Residence
B4. Present use: Sinqle-Familv Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional
*66. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
No original building permit is on file at the Burlingame Building Department for the building at 1536 Howard Avenue. However, the
building was built in 1957 during the ownership of Rocco and Mary Borg. When the Borgs purchased the parcel in 1955, a small
cottage and a garage were located at the rear of the lot. By 1959, as seen in a Sanborn Map Company map, the existing building
was present along with both the toolshed and garage (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Using aerial photographs and Sanborn Map Company maps it is possible to piece together some of the changes that have been
made to the site since the erection of a cottage on this site in 1921 (permit no. 289). Aerials from 1941 and 1956 show a large
front lawn with a cottage and garage located at the rear of the property (Figure 21 and Figure 22). In 1946, a permit for a new
garage was issued and the 1947 aerial appears to confirm that a new, larger garage was built in the location of the existing
garage but was smaller in footprint than the existing garage.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 7)
*B7. Moved? �No ❑Yes OUnknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Yes 69a. Architect: Architect unknown b. Builder: Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area Burlingame Park
Period of Significance N/A Property Type Sinqle-Familv Residential Applicable Criteria N/A
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context — City of Burlingame:
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given to
Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several
prominent San Francisco businessmen, inciuding William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In
1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China.
Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventuaily to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon.
Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893,
William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-
rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions
in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 9)
611. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
(HP4) — two ancillary buildings — garage and toolshed
*B12. References: See Paae 12
613. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator: Barrett Reiter, Paqe & Turnbull, inc.
'Date of Evaluation: December 30. 2019
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2019. Property in
orange. Modified by Page & Turnbull.
/ TA,' L'U(J! AHFA _ _ _ _O �
� � + Ze
�1� �l o�o/�'�» /p4 � 0
' ° ��"' r.) +�Ar� 291m 19 a .
�v � ' ;: a�
�i A n� O�O O���'i
p ,.m r'�
`T�� � r� n 44 y6 � .� A� �.
�Qo �o�, ..r. .
�o p� , o_ - y` � �� �° o c� n a ��
y <
� +�—__ . t � � � ( k Q
�r ,�^ �
e�.. . '�Z92 � R
zCQ i;�i" � ., ' K ., . < A . .� O�'
�� � O O AO•, O O O Oln <� n--
� i i
g NEWLANOS �Q- qyE
DPR 5236 (9/2013► *'Required information
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 7 of 12
'Recorded by Paae & Turnbull. Inc.
*B6. Construction History (continued):
Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
"Date December 30. 2019 � Continuation ❑ Update
The followin buildin ermits are on file at the Burlin ame Buildin De artment:
Permit # Date Owner Builder/Contractor Description
289 6/28/1921 W.J. Dessin None listed Cotta e, $800
E-839 3/1/1946 Frank Martell Owner New Gara e, $500
sub'ect house built in ca. 1957
M-669 6/18/1962 Rocco J. Bor Owner Tool Shed, $200.
Q-968 4/24/1968 Rocco J. Bor Termi-Kill Inc. Termite and rot re airs
S-994 2l16/1971 Ed ar Howe Sterlin Roofin Re-roofin
2007 9/2/1980 E. Howe Nor Cal Patios Extend atio roof
R08-0024 2/12/2008 Ruth Howe Peterson & Jenkins Roofing Expired without final inspection; reroof
house
�
Q 2V' =�.: ! ,� �/i �\'J � ° �r � ��� 1 r i ��� � ;� f,,� .Y� i f_
� i� �"� I�.
_ ,' L ;'���r ,1� , I ;� ,n, ;� �-
�:., ^, ,�� f��-. "Ca-�; � �
-•, .,..-
... -�
�, �•...,
_ ,... .... -�-.�,M ��
. , -,,:. .,. �� , �
' ._ � .. .. _ . . . . X'•1...'":�"'""._ . ,.__.
� �n`,� .i���_`r �='3 _���_, n1s T „�_ —
� � � ,;�,.�JI ..:J�� °ii�4�!���' `i-�� ���
Figure 19: Sanborn Map Co., page 23, revised to 1949, from
1921. Property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco
Public Library. Edited by Page 8� Turnbull.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 8)
�` —r
�, ' ;�,j/.. \' �..�,-_. / r /' i' � f' —{; j
J ��% )!�j ' � � � � ' �
� � �� � �_ '�� �� ` I'I J j . �
/� �- �,�.�i r ' ; � �
`,'� � � a , ��-i � — �'': � �:I
��''j �� �,;, � ` f��e' - f.—..
:'� a ' I
��,�,�jo � -�7 �� �!
_s -`l.
� ] ,
P`� � `'� /1 `..'l ��'..
. _ ' � -. _,�1f1��;��� ,��,.,I
��, � �--.1 �. -'-� -- - - �
..
�- . �=..I . �1 RD - ..
�,
; ��/ .. � , � ... -. � a �r ----
�e � 1 . . ' � _`.�. � -x�
- _� I � ll ' j�. e � �
� � '; � �1�� ���-�J� �l.1���1�-�I�
Figure 20: Sanborn Map Co., page 23, revised to 1959,
from 1921. Property outlined in orange. Source: San
Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page 8� Turnbull.
-- � � �
�* I �
Figure 22: 1956 Aerial. Subject
parcel outlined in orange. Source:
FrameFinder, Flight GS-VLX,
Frame 1-41. Edited by Page &
Turnbull.
� � � �y�
� «�
Figure 23:1965 Aerial. Subject
parcel outlined in orange.
Source: FrameFinder, Flight
CAS-65-130, Frame 1-205. Edited
by Page & Turnbull.
DPR 523L
Figure 21: 1941 Aerial. Subject parcel
outlined in orange. Source: FrameFinder,
Flight C-6660, Frame 355. Edited by Page &
Turnbull.
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
"`Recorded by Paae & Turnbull. Inc. "Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
"B6. Construction History (continued):
A 1965 aerial photograph shows the site much as it exists today and confirms the conditions shown in the 1959 Sanborn Map
Company map, with the residence towards the front of the lot and two freestanding buildings towards the rear (Figure 23). By the
time the 1965 aerial photograph was taken, the 1946 garage building had been expanded to its current footprint. It is unclear
whether this garage alteration was undertaken at the same time the house was constructed, or whether it was completed after the
construction of the house. In 1962, Rocco Borg appears to have converted the site's 1921 garage building — located directly
behind the 1921 cottage in the 1941 aeriai — into a toolshed (permit no. M669) (see Figure 21).'
Since the construction of the subject building few changes have been made. Permitted work includes interior repairs from termite
damage and rot in 1968 (permit no. Q-968), the reroofing of the building in 1971 (permit no. S-994), and the addition of the
aluminum patio roof along the rear fa�ade in 1980 (permit no. 2007). The roof may have been redone in 2008, but the permit on
file expired without a final inspection.2 Photographs of the building in 1965 and 1968, from Multiple Listing Service (MLS) entries,
show that windows along the primary fa�ade have since been replaced (Figure 24 and Figure 25).3 Replacement windows on
the left of the primary fa�ade appear to be similar to the original windows, while the larger window arrangement to the right
originally consisted of a large fixed center window with partial height casement windows to each side under fixed transoms.
Photographs of the subject building's primary fa�ade between 2008 and 2018 show that the original windows had been replaced
by 2008, and the existing windows were installed between April 2015 and January 2018.4 Existing windows on all fa�ades were
likely installed following the transfer of ownership from Ruth Howe to Michael Glynn in 2015. Beyond the replacement of the
building's original windows, 1536 Howard Avenue remains largely unchanged since its construction in 1957. (See Continuation
Sheet, page 9)
Fi ure 24: 1536 Howar �
g d Avenue in 1965. Source: MLS (Multiple Listing Service) entry, Burlingame Historical Society
.l . ;
��.�
a; l
f. �.' .`'.::x
,
Figure 25: 1536 Howard Avenue in 1968. Source: MLS (Multiple Listing Service) entry, Burlingame Historical Society
' Permit no. M669, Building Permit Records, 1536 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA.
z Pe�mit no. R08-0024, Building Permit Records, 1536 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA.
'"1536 Howard Avenue," MLS entry, 1965 and 1968, Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
" Google Maps Streetview, 2008-2019.
DPR 523L
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomia�
Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
'Recorded by Paqe & Turnbull, Inc. "Date December 30. 2019 O Continuation ❑ Update
"`B10. Significance (continued):
Historic Context — Citv of Burlingame (continued):
During this time, EI Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of
Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame
began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However,
the 1906 Earthquake and Fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two
years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000 people. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed
the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By
1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107.
Buriinqame Park Neiqhborhood
The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame
Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of Rancho San Mateo. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the
property following Burlingame's death in 1870, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially,
Ralston hired Wlliam Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park.
Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands.
Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan
"centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."5 The
land was subdivided, and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. Burlingame Park is
located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in
1911.6
Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and
were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is
bounded by the County Road (EI Camino Real) to the north; Barroilhet Avenue to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and
Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of
about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years of the twentieth century. The town of
Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most the residences within the neighborhood were
constructed in the 1920s and 1930s.
The existing house at 1536 Howard Avenue was constructed to replace a 1921 cottage on this site which dated to the primary
period of development in Burlingame Park. In 1957 the subject house was constructed to enlarge the residential capacity of the lot
and illustrates the selective redevelopment that occurred in the decade following World War II. Today, the neighborhood represents
the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth-century
building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are some variation of the
Craftsman style or various revival styles.
1536 Howard Avenue — Owner History
The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 1536 Howard Avenue, compiled from Burlingame and San
Mateo city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources.'
Year(s) of Ownership Name(s) of Owners (known Occupation
owners in bold
Rocco J. Borg Mechanic at Hunters Point (SF); retired in 1962
1955 - 1968 Mary Borg Not listed
Charles E. Borg Mechanic at Hunters Point (SF)
Paul M. Bor United States Na ; Laborer at Hunters Point
1968-2015 Edgar G. HoweB Parts man Jones-Minto Ford Sales and Kohlenberg Ford
Ruth Howe Not listed
2015-Present Michael GI nn
(See Continuation Sheet, page 10)
5 Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94.
6 Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park" (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004).
' Known owners are those who were specified either in city directories, permits or assessor records as homeowners. City directories did not
consistently specify who was a homeowner versus a resident or renter, so it is possible that not all names listed above were homeowners.
e Edgar G. Howe passed away in 1994.
DPR 523L
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomia�
Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
"Recorded by Paae & Turnbull. Inc. "Date December 30. 2019 0 Continuation ❑ Update
*610. Significance (continued):
1536 Howard Avenue — Owner History (continued)
Prior to the construction of the subject building, the previous cottage on the site was built for Wilkie J. Dessin, a well-known early
resident of Burlingame who lived in Burlingame since 1908.g Wilkie J. Dessin operated a garage in Burlingame and joined the
Volunteer Fire Department in 1912. He became the volunteer Fire Chief in 1914, transitioned to full-time Fire Chief when the
Burlingame Fire Department was officially organized in 1930, and remained in that role until his death in 1942.10 Dessin lived in the
cottage at 1536 Howard Avenue from 1921 until 1924."
In 1955, the subject property — which contained the 1921 cottage, a 1921 garage building (now the toolshed), and a larger 1946
garage — was purchased by Rocco J. and Mary Borg. As the original 1957 building permit for the subject building is not on file at
the Burlingame building department it is unclear whether an architect or builder was listed in conjunction with 1536 Howard
Avenue. The Borgs appear to have rented out the rear cottage in 1955 and 1956, as several names appear in relation to the
property in these years. Once the subject building was completed Rocco J. and Mary Borg lived at 1536 Howard Avenue from at
least 1958 through 1967. For much of this time at least two of their three sons also lived in the house. Both Rocco and Mary were
originally from Malta; they immigrated in 1921 and 1926, respectively.12 Rocco became a pipefitter at the Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard in 1940; a position he would keep until his retirement in 1962.13 Rocco and Mary's oldest sons, Charles and Paul, also
worked at the Hunters Point shipyard in the 1950s and 1960s while they lived with their parents at the subject property.14 The last
listing for the Borg family at this address in city directories is in 1967, and the house was listed for sale in 1968.t5
In 1968 Edgar and Ruth Howe purchased 1536 Howard Avenue. Edgar G. Howe was an automobile parts man for Ford. In 1964,
Edgar Howe was mentioned as being a graduate of the parts merchandising course at the San Francisco Ford Marketing Institute
at Burlingame.16 While Edgar passed away in 1994, Ruth Howe continued to reside at the property until 2015, when the property
was sold to its current owner, Michael Glynn.
1536 Howard Avenue — Minimal Traditional Style
The Minimal Traditional style was popular from about 1935 to 1950 and became a common style used during the residential
building boom of the post-World War II period. Descriptions of the style stress simpliciry with its "simple composition, simple roof
lines, and simple variations and materials" that "gives the small house the appearance of maximum size."" Some common
features of Minimal Traditional style houses include a simple, compact massing with low hipped rooflines, shallow eaves, and
stucco or wood wall claddings, sometimes used in combination, as well as an overall lack of ornamentation.18 1536 Howard
Avenue is a late example of the Minimal Traditional style, which saw its primary period end in the late 1940s as the Ranch style "in
the 1950s and 1960s became by far the most popular house style built throughout the country."19 However, in its simplicity, lack of
decoration, and compact massing, the subject building demonstrates a number of the features of the Minimal Traditional style.
Although 1536 Howard Avenue demonstrates a number of these features, it remains a late example of the style and is not a
significant representation of the style in Burlingame or California.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 11)
9 Permit no. 289, Building Permit Records, 1536 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
'° "Wilkie Dessin, Burlingame Fire Chief, Dies," The San Mateo Times, January 7, 1942, 1.
" Burlingame City Directories, 1921-1925.
1z 1940 United States Federal Census.
""Rocco J. Borg," The San Mateo Times, February 21, 1975, 32.
14 Burlingame City Directories, 1958-1967.
15 "Open Sunday 2 to 4," The San Mateo Times, March 30, 1968, 22.
16 "5,000 Study with Ford at Burlingame." The San Mateo Times, September 22, 1964, 24.
" Virginia Savage McAlester, A Fie/d Guide to American Houses, 2"tl ed., (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 588.
1e Architectural Resources Group, "Architectural Style Guide: Minimal Traditional," prepared for the City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, July 2019, https�//www anaheim net/DocumentCenterNiew/27509/Anaheim-Architectural-Style-Guide-Minimal-Traditional
19 McAlester, 602.
DPR 523I,
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # '
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Paae & Turnbull. Inc. "Date December 30. 2019 � Continuation ❑ Update
*B10. Significance (continued):
Evaluation:
The property at 1536 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file, affiiiated
with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of
historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and, therefore, the property is not listed locally.
1536 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A or the
California Register under Criterion 1(Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was constructed in
1957, replacing an earlier 1921 cottage on this site, at a time when the Burlingame Park subdivision had largely been developed.
It is not an integral property in the history of the area's development. The property does not rise to the level of significance
necessary to be individually eligible for the National Register or California Register. Therefore, it does not appear to be eligible for
listing under Criterion A/1.
1536 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B or the
California Register under Criterion 2(Persons). The subject building was built in 1957 by property owners Rocco J. and Mary Borg.
They resided at this property until at least 1967 and sold the property in 1968. Rocco and Mary Borg were both immigrants from
Malta, who came to the United States in the 1920s. Rocco and his two sons, Charles and Paul, worked at the Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard. The next owner-residents of 1536 Howard Avenue were Edgar and Ruth Howe. Edgar Howe was involved in automobile
parts merchandizing for Ford for much of his career. Edgar lived at the subject property until his death in 1994, and Ruth continued
to live at the property until it was sold in 2015. Archival research did not find that these individuals made a significant impact on
local, state, or national history such that 1536 Howard Avenue could be found to be individually eligible under Criteria B/2.
Therefore, 1536 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criteria B/2.
1536 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion C or the California
Register Criterion 3(Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction. Designed in a late version of the Minimal Traditional style, nothing is known about the architect or builder of 1536
Howard Avenue. 1536 Howard Avenue demonstrates a number of the common elements of residential architecture of the 1950s,
however, the building is not a particularly notable example of 1950s residential architecture. Therefore, 1536 Howard Avenue does
not appear to rise to a level of individual significance under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register
Criterion D or California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources.
The analysis of the residence at 1536 Howard Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is also beyond the scope of this report.
Conclusion
1536 Howard Avenue was constructed in 1957 in a late Minimal Traditional style after the primary period of development of
Burlingame Park, and replaced a 1921 cottage on this site. No significant events are associated with the property. From 1957 until
2015, the building was owned and occupied by only two families, the Borg family and the Howe family. None of the residents have
been found to be significant in association with 1536 Howard Avenue. Finally, the building does not embody the work of a master,
exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to such a degree that it would be individually eligible.
As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the building, meaning that it was
"Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation."20
Z° California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the
California Historica/ Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004.
DPR 523L
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 12 of 12
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*B12. References:
Resource Name or # 1536 Howard Avenue
*Date December 30. 2019 0 Continuation ❑ Update
"5,000 Study with Ford at Burlingame." The San Mateo Times, September 22, 1964, 24.
Ancestry.com.
Architectural Resources Group, "Architectural Style Guide: Minimal Traditional," prepared for the City of Anaheim Planning and
Building Department, July 2019, https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/27509/Anaheim-Architectural-Style-
Guide-Minimal-Traditional
Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.
Building Permit Records, 1536 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA.
Burlingame City Directories, 1923-present.
Burlingame Historical Sociery, Multiple Listing Service, property records.
California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's
Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento,
November 2004.
Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan." February 19, 2008.
Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
"Open Sunday 2 to 4," The San Mateo Times, March 30, 1968, 22.
"Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982.
"Rocco J. Borg," The San Mateo Times, February 21, 1975, 32.
Sanborn Map Company, maps. Burlingame. 1921, 1946, 1949, 1959.
United States Federal Census, 1940, Accessed via Ancestry.com
"Wilkie Dessin, Burlingame Fire Chief, Dies," The San Mateo Times, January 7, 1942, 1.
DPR 523L