Some "interesting" information in this article which is posted in its entirety. There was much discussion at Monday's council meeting where Safeway was given plenty of "direction" – the mantra that Safeway used last time:

Again with the Safeway by Jon Mays (Daily Journal)
For more than 20 years, the city of Burlingame has tried to build a new Safeway at the corner of Primrose Road and Howard Avenue. The current store is about 25,000 square feet with about 10 aisles of products available for you and I to purchase for a price.
The store, with its aging doors and floors, has stood as a testament to the city's inability to decide what it exactly wants at the spot. It was the stuff of campaign hit pieces when a prior council majority sought a store with a combined Walgreen's and grocery store that would reach the size of perhaps 64,000 square feet. Cries were heard on the street that their rotisserie chicken would put restaurants out of business or their plastic-wrapped flowers would forever kill the down-home mom-and-pop feel of the Avenue.
As if that didn't happen years before.
A group called the Citizens for a Better Burlingame that believed such a large store would be the death of the quaint 'burb came alive to save us from ourselves. Upward and onward the group went, ridding the council of the members who wanted such a building there while asking for ideas on creating housing at the site. Maybe a four-story building might work out well too.
Fast forward approximately three years and we are now at the beginning of the third phase of the Burlingame Process? in which the opinions of the collective Burlingame chattering class is thrown into a hat for discussion by the powers that be.
The latest group thought is that underground parking or rooftop parking may be a poor decision. Underground has nefarious connotations in its subterranean roots in that burglars or other criminals may lurk in the brightly lit places to pounce upon our Mercedes SUV-driving housewives and steal their hard-earned money and fashions without nary a notice of their intentions. Rooftop parking carries less threat of such danger but may mean those toting children may get wet as they are loaded or unloaded into said SUVs. The shame. The horror. The impending sorrow. What will become of the wet children?
Top those concerns with the idea that the city may have to pay for the parking of the new store and that the price tag may reach up to $98,000 each and you have what you call a doggone reason to drop the plan altogether.
Aside from the fact that the discussion of renovating or replacing the Safeway is as old as the days are long.
Everyone can agree the city needs a new store. It's old. It's ugly. It's, well, if you've been in there in the last 10 years, you know of what I speak.
But low and behold, we are entering the third phase of the Burlingame Process.? There was some discussion of including housing at the site, but that fell to the wayside. Now, the main goal seems to be creating a store around 45,000 square feet with parking at-grade, below-grade or on a roof. Any option works for me, but then I don't worry that much about muggings or getting wet when it rains.
At one point, there was discussion of a monster? Safeway with a Walgreen's inside that would swallow the block. Now that it is scaled back and we may just get a new store slightly bigger than the one currently there with aisles of products we may want to buy.
The Burlingame Process? was born out of disappointment with the public planning process. It transmogrified into a plan in which there might be housing, and there might be four to five levels of retail, offices or otherwise. But practicality has set in and what we may now have before us is a scaled-down plan modest in scope and realistic in scale. After 20 years of discussion, it is interesting how we settle on the lowest common denominator one that may have made the most sense in the beginning.
But then really, what fun would that be? Why not complain about the configuration, the placement, the parking, the process, the council or the fact that the salsa is overpriced, the avocados are too green and the grapes may be just a bit too soft?
Or, we can just move forward and agree upon a new modest-sized store that fits downtown and serves the needs of the people who live here? But ain't that crazy?
Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the San Mateo Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com.

– Written by Fiona

Too bad that there were so many people trying to attend this study session that they were spilling out of the door but here is Heather's article about the meeting:

Underground parking? City can't afford it (by Heather Murtagh (Daily Journal)
Parking a car underground before shopping in downtown Burlingame will not be a reality for the envisioned rebuilt Safeway, at least not funded by the city because officials say they simply cannot afford the luxury.
Six parking options ranging from $7.2 million for three levels of above-ground parking to $19.8 million for one level of underground parking were presented to the council during a special study session last night. Trying to add parking to the downtown was accelerated by the idea of incorporating the spots into the forthcoming Safeway redevelopment. Ultimately, the council conceded the one option offering underground parking on the Safeway site was simply too expensive.
We can't afford it. We simply can't afford it,? said Councilman Jerry Deal who would have favored the option if it were feasible and beneficial to the city.
The first option generated 204 new spaces underground on the Safeway site at $98,000 per space for a total of $19.8 million. This was the only option requiring a rush decision. Even if the city did have the funds, a decision to move forward with underground parking could potentially delay a new Safeway by two years, said Public Works Director Syed Murtuza.
The delay allows the city to consider the alternatives during its downtown specific planning process.
Part of [the downtown plan] vision is to organize parking more logically,? said Councilwoman Terry Nagel. She went on to suggest the possibility of selling underutilized lots to add onto lots in busier areas with nice aesthetics as a compromise down the road.
Vice Mayor Ann Keighran echoed Nagel's sentiment, adding she was a big proponent of underground parking. This will give the city time to discuss other opportunities it may be missing right now. We can look for the next step to look at the underground parking and using the surface parking more wisely,? she said.
Residents spoke in favor of keeping the option for underground parking in other places in the downtown. John Root, who sits on the Downtown Specific Plan Committee, sees above-ground, at-grade and underground parking throughout the downtown.
Other options were not nearly as pricey.
Above ground parking at Lot J between Primrose and Park roads were split into three alternatives: Three above grade levels generating 265 new spots; two above grade levels and one below creating 265 new spaces for $17 million; or one surface lot and one below grade lot resulting in new 180 spots for $14.5 million. In any of these options, Blockbuster Video would be rebuilt into the floor level of the parking garage.
Creating 123 new spaces in an above ground structure on Parking Lot A-3, on Donnelly Road, and adding a level of parking on parking structure A was the cheapest choice at $7.2 million.
The final option took the $7.2 million option and added a three-level parking structure on Lot C on Donnelly Road for $13.8 million total.
Thirty e-mails were sent to the council regarding the topic. Twenty-one were against underground parking for one of a number of reasons: Cost, safety or potentially adding excess time to an already drawn out process. Those not against underground parking simply wished the council would move the project along.
A Safeway before I die would be nice,? one resident wrote.
During its regular meeting later in the evening, the council supported encouraging Safeway to proceed to phase three by submitting a project application using the recommendations of the Safeway Working Group.
In addition, the council authorized City Manager Jim Nantell to enter into negotiations regarding the potential use of lots K and L on El Camino Real and Fox Plaza Lane respectively.
Getting to this point has taken Burlingame years. The city is currently getting the two lots appraised. First estimates valued the two sites at $6 million with 75 percent of the value within Lot K.
A February 2004 rejection of a 66,900-square-foot building with a new store and a Walgreens and a Wells Fargo inside spurred the public planning method called the Burlingame Process? in February last year. Months of meetings with representatives from stakeholder groups like merchants, property owners and citizens sharing their desires for the site at Howard Avenue and Primrose Road resulted in the conceptual options brought before the City Council and Planning Commission in August.

More from Christine.

– Written by Fiona

Several options for Burlingame Safeway parking to be studied Monday. Burlingame has choice of six Safeway lots (by Christine Morente, San Mateo County Times)
BURLINGAME City officials are going to be presented with multiple parking options for the Safeway project at Monday's study session.
Wilbur Smith Associates came up with six proposals with cost estimates that include underground parking, a two-story parking garage, and a three-level structure.
"Option A" is a 204-car underground parking garage at a cost of $19.8 million, according to the city's staff report. The consultant determined it has the highest cost per space at $98,000. In addition, there would be high maintenance and operation costs because of ventilation, dewatering, lighting and security needs. An underground structure also would conflict with a planned storm drain interceptor. Currently, an existing storm drain box culvert causes flooding in the downtown area during storms.
In a letter to residents dated Sept. 1, Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony asked that residents come forward Monday and reject the underground option. She called it "unsafe," and would rather have street-level parking. O'Mahony could not be reached Friday. "If you do not care to use underground parking, I would really appreciate if you would e-mail our city council and tell them what you want: A nice new, life-style Safeway with plenty of visible parking…," she said.
"Option B" involves Lot J between Primrose and Park roads. Safeway would have to buy the Blockbuster property for a 7,000-square-foot retail space fronting Park Road, according to the staff report.
So far, that option has three variations.
The first is to have 265 new spaces in a three-level, above-grade parking structure for $11.2 million; the second is to have 265 new spaces in a three-level structure and a below-grade parking structure for $17 million; and the third is to have 180 new spaces in a two-story structure and a below-grade parking structure for $14.5 million.
"Option C" includes 123 new spaces in an above-grade structure on Lot A-3 on Donnelly Road, and adding a level on the parking structure for $7.2 million.
"Option D" has 244 spaces in an above-ground structure on Lots A and C, plus adding a level on Lot A, for $13.8 million.
Deborah Karbo, Safeway Inc.'s real estate manager, confirmed in a letter to City Manager Jim Nantell that the company is committed to build a store reflective of the Safeway Working Group's recommendations.
Those include a store with a 45,000-square-foot footprint, its entrance angled toward Howard Avenue; a grocery loading dock at the northwest corner of the site with truck access off El Camino Real; and widening of Fox Plaza Lane.
However, before it puts in an application, Safeway needs to know what the city's plan is for public parking, and if city land will be available to incorporate into the project.
She warned that if the city chose underground parking, there would be a longer construction period, and the store would be closed for an additional eight to 10 months, for a total of 20 to 24 months.
Another drawback is that if the city is still looking for funding, the project would be delayed. Rising costs or corporate changes may affect the "viability of the project," Karbo said.
Safeway will consider purchasing city property, if it's feasible.
The study session is at 6 p.m. Monday at Conference Room A in City Hall, 501 Primrose Road. The regular City Council meeting is at 7 p.m. in council chambers.

– Written by Fiona