Burlingame planning commissioners continue 1385 Hillside Circle subdivision after neighbors raise safety, drainage and tree-loss concerns

The Burlingame Planning Commission on Sept. 22 continued review of a proposal to demolish an existing mansion and subdivide the parcel at 1385 Hillside Circle into three lots for new single‑family homes, instructing the developer to return with a set of design and landscape revisions.

Neighbors and the project team spent the bulk of the meeting debating traffic safety, stormwater runoff and visual impacts from the steeply sloped site. Multiple speakers said the existing house is blighted and should be replaced, but asked the developer to change the subdivision plan so that one of the new houses fronts Easton Drive rather than all three fronting Hillside Circle. "This plan calls for one too many houses fronting Hillside Circle," resident Nancy Lockach said, citing narrow sightlines and heavy pedestrian traffic at Hoover School. Several neighbors also said mature trees were removed from the site without permission and urged larger, faster‑growing specimens in the replacement landscape plan.

Developer Mark Hazes Loop of CHS Development Group defended the project as a rebuild of a long‑vacant property and said the team plans to file a construction‑management plan that will address dust, street cleaning, delivery timing and flagging for short‑term lane closures. "A construction management plan will be filed and approved by the city before issuance of the building permit," he said, and added that the applicant intends to build the three houses concurrently with an estimated construction timeline of 18 to 24 months.

Architect James (architect's last name provided in the record) described design choices intended to step the houses down the hillside and to reduce perceived height from Hillside Circle. Nevertheless, neighbors said the rear elevations visible from lower properties and from Easton Drive look "massive," and they asked for clear 3‑D renderings from the east side and a stronger planting palette to screen the new walls.

On motion by Chair Heran, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, the commission voted 5‑0 with Vice Chair Shores recused to continue the project and directed the applicant to return with the following, among other items:

• A detailed landscape plan showing tree species, quantities and planting sizes intended to mature into meaningful screening rather than small ornamental trees;

• Additional renderings, including an east‑vantage perspective showing existing property fences and the proposed planting;

• Weather protection (small canopies or overhangs) at side garage/entry doors;

• Reduced size for large stairwell windows (to limit light spill to neighbors);

• Revisions to entry and window alignment so door, central window and garage openings relate more consistently; and

• Design studies to soften the blocky, modern massing on lot three — including at least one option that introduces a lower‑pitch roof or other measures to better fit the neighborhood scale.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly urged the developer to propose mature screening specimens (evergreen trees and canopy trees of substantial caliper at installation) because, they said, the site previously had extensive vegetation that mitigated the visual impact of structures on the slope. Residents echoed that concern: "I worry about people coming and squatting there," said a parent who lives nearby, calling attention to safety and the adjacent school route.

The staff report described the site as roughly 36,955 square feet with steep slopes averaging 19.6% to 31.6%, and noted the project requires major design review, special permits for attached garages on down‑slope lots and a special permit for declining‑height‑envelope encroachments because of the slope. Commissioners noted the project stays within permitted floor‑area limits for each lot but said visual and public‑safety issues needed more study.

The commission will consider the project again after the applicant provides the requested materials. The continuance was not a denial of the concept; it was a direction to return with specific refinements and additional technical and visual information so the commission and neighbors can evaluate the revised proposal.