Showers and a possible thunderstorm in the morning will give way to mostly cloudy skies late. High 64F. Winds SSW at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 70%..
Tonight
Cloudy with showers. Low 53F. Winds SW at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 50%.
A proposal that could have brought back a contentious grocery store plan in Burlingame this fall was dropped by Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony this week.
A proposed 66,910-square-foot building with a Safeway, a Walgreens and a Wells Fargo on Howard Avenue and Primrose Road was rejected with prejudice by the City Council in February. That means the project is not allowed to return to the city for consideration for at least one year unless it is dramatically different.
In late June, O'Mahony proposed shortening that time frame to six months after a poll paid for by Safeway seemed to indicate some city support for the project. Her proposal was to help developers reduce the price of construction rising by the month, she said. While it was not specifically for the Safeway project, some interpreted as such.
After asking the city attorney and city planner to assess the time frame for other cities, O'Mahony said is now leaning toward leaving the present ordinance in place. It was to have been discussed at Monday's City Council meeting.
"Without resounding support for a change, I therefore think it prudent to leave Burlingame's ordinance unchanged," she said.
Dropping the proposal guarantees that Safeway cannot come back to the table until February unless it dramatically changes its plans, which so far it has been unwilling to do.
Safeway wants to construct the new store to face El Camino Real with parking in front of the entrance. A pedestrian-friendly 66,910-square-foot retail area along Primrose is also proposed. Safeway representatives say the plan is the only one that will fit the block and do not want to scale the project back any more. However, some residents believe the proposal is too large for Burlingame's pedestrian-oriented downtown.
Recommended for you
Citizens for a Better Burlingame, an activist group formed to oppose the proposed development, cheered O'Mahony's decision and said she made the right choice.
"It was inappropriate from the get-go. I don't think it benefited anyone but Safeway. I think it was an inappropriate thing for the City Council to do," said Dan Andersen, co-chair of the group.
Changing the rule would have turned the Planning Commission into a "toothless tiger," said Stephen Hamilton, treasurer of the group, since developers would not have to wait as long before submitting a rejected plan again.
Although O'Mahony's decision may quiet some recent dissent, Hamilton said his group plans on keeping the issue at the forefront. O'Mahony's offer sends a message to Safeway that the city wants a new store, now Safeway needs to listen, he said.
"[O'Mahony] offered something, but it was a one-sided bargain," Hamilton said.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.