Historic home demolished

Resident Tim Donnelly, though, believes more should have been done to maintain the house constructed in 1900 by the city’s first stationmaster G.W. Gates, in observance of its significance to Burlingame’s history.

“I think it’s a crying shame that building wasn’t restored,” said Donnelly.

The damaged building sat vacant since 2013 after being burnt in a four-alarm fire that was started by the floor heater in a neighboring building. The fire’s toll was clear from the charred exterior, visible behind a fence downtown prior to the demolition permit’s issuance in March.

Russ Cohen, vice president of the Burlingame Historical Society, agreed that he would have liked to have seen the building saved. But after touring the property, he came to the conclusion that was not a viable alternative.

“It was clear that there was some significant damage done by the fire, so there didn’t seem to be any interest in restoring the building because of the costs of doing that,” said Cohen.

Property owner John Britton did not respond to request for comment on this article.

Gates, the city’s first stationmaster and third postmaster, commissioned to construct the building on Burlingame Avenue around 1900. He then had the house moved to its current location on Donnelly Avenue in 1917. It was deemed to be a historical building, eligible for listing on the local and national registers, around 2008.

The Gates house suffered $250,000 of damage in the fire when combustible items in the neighboring apartment building at 2018 Donnelly Ave. were placed near a floor heater, and the complex caught fire.

Burlingame Community Development Director Bill Meeker said the house’s historical significance was associated with its residents, not the structure. So once the building was compromised, demolition and redevelopment was considered suitable.

Had the historic character been recognized through the structure, Meeker said there would have been a higher threshold for the property owner to clear when seeking to tear it down.

As it stands though, Meeker said removing the structure was a preferable alternative to leaving it blighted and vacant, as reports were filed that people were trespassing which he suggested invited the threat of more fire danger.

He too suggested the house was so badly damaged that it could not be saved.

“The property deteriorated to the point where there was really no economically feasible way to restore the property,” he said.

Under the plans filed with the city, the property is slated for redevelopment into a 32,200-square-foot project with 5,000 square feet set aside for restaurant or retail uses at the ground floor. The top two floors above would include 12 two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units, with 24 parking spaces to be provided in a private garage.

To make way for the residential project, officials need to approve rezoning the property and areas surrounding the proposed site, said Burlingame Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner.

He said the project is likely to go before the Planning Commission soon, and ultimately onto the City Council, which would need to approve the project as well as the zoning change.

Donnelly though said he does not believe the project should be approved, claiming officials should not honor the wishes of the property owner who he believes did not work hard enough to preserve the old home.

“I don’t think people should be rewarded for bad behavior,” he said. “The fact that he left it there for years looking like an eyesore — that was pretty rude.”

Cohen said the Historical Society worked hard to meet multiple times with the owner and encourage him to reconsider the development plans, with limited success. He said ultimately, the structure’s fate was in the hands of its owner.

“At the end of the day, property owners have the right to do what they want,” he said.

As a compromise though, he said he would like to see some recognition of the home’s historical significance in the redevelopment. A commemorative plaque would be the least that could be expected, said Cohen, who suggested something more significant such as the façade of the old home being replicated in the redevelopment.

“Whatever happens on that property, we would like to see the story of the Gates House be told in some way,” he said.

To that end, Meeker said historical recognition will be required at the redeveloped site, but the fashion by which that will be represented is yet to be determined.

For Donnelly though, he believes redeveloping the property is a dereliction of duty by the property owner who did not value the structure he considers key piece of the city’s history.

“You don’t buy something like that just to destroy it, that is just beyond rude. There is a responsibility when you purchase a historic artifact. You are just a caretaker, that’s the way I look at it,” he said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105