In response to your mention of Linda Humber's letter questioning the opposition to the actual size of the proposal for the failed Safeway complex in Burlingame. I suggest that she read (carefully) the EIR so as not to confuse footprint dimensions with square footage. Mezzanines and cellars are not included when calculating footprint coverage. The footprint of this project is where the sprawling negative impact has been made. By including interior unusable spaces in their calculations, Safeway has attempted to blind side people into believing that their current store footprint is several thousand square feet larger than it truly is. Their purpose is to convince the city and unknowing individuals that undertaking a more reasonably sized project won't be economically viable for them. This is disingenuous. Furthermore, one must consider the cumulative negative affect of combining several separate structures, each currently with an independent entrance and replacing them with one massive complex and only a single entrance oriented towards El Camino. Retail space with usable dimensions, on Primrose but also on emerging Howard Avenue, should be combined with a scaled Safeway/Walgreens complex, perhaps even with housing. As it stands, surface parking is insufficient, truck traffic is still planned for Primrose and the construction of the project is only viable by swapping a well-used public parking lot off of Primrose. Sadly, this tired eight year-old plan will continue to be controversial until it is finally discarded and replaced with a new, smarter concept that every resident of Burlingame can proudly support and unify behind. The Planning Commission has given Safeway Corporation plenty of direction, now the ball is in their court.

– Written by Jennifer Pfaff