Ice rink’s fate is in spotlight again
Supporters fear city will reverse course and approve developer’s latest plan for retail outlets
SAN MATEO — One of the Peninsula’s most controversial developments is back on the front burner, as the Planning Commission prepares for a Dec. 8 hearing on plans to tear down a popular ice rink and replace it with retail outlets.
Advocates of saving the rink are concerned that the city may reverse course and approve the latest proposal. San Mateo planners are recommending that commissioners sign off on demolishing the skating venue, even though the commission unanimously rejected a nearly identical vision in 2014.
“It’s very frustrating that they seem to value the developer’s interests more than the community’s,” said Ju- lie McAuliffe, a leader of the campaign to save the rink, which attracted recreational skaters, figure skaters and hundreds of youth and adult hockey players from around the region.
The owner of the property, SPI Holdings, claims the rink is dragging down the overall performance of Bridgepointe Shopping Center, a complex of big box stores off Highway 92 near the Foster City border. The company argues a store such as Nordstrom Rack would be more prof-
itable, improve the center’s ability to draw shoppers in a competitive retail landscape and boost the city’s sales tax revenues.
The master plan for Bridgepointe, approved by the city in the 1990s, requires SPI to include the rink or a similar recreational amenity for the benefit of the public. To convert the rink to retail, the company will need approval from the Planning Commission as well as the City Council.
SPI shuttered the rink in 2013, despite not having received the city’s OK to replace it. The city claims it cannot force the company to reopen the facility. The Bridgepointe master plan requires the presence of a rink, city attorneys argue, but not its operation.
The composition of the five-member commission has changed since it shot down SPI’s last plan on May 27, 2014, with three of the strongest voices against the proposal having moved on. The company’s vision at that time was to pay the city an undetermined amount of money for recreational programs or facilities elsewhere in San Mateo to compensate for the loss of the rink.
One of the commissioners who left was Chris Massey, chairman at the time of the May 2014 hearing. He told SPI representatives that night that “just handing the city a check and walking away is not going to be good enough.”
After the defeat, SPI briefly explored the possibility of keeping the rink while also adding new retail options. But now it has returned with a plan that differs from its 2014 vision in only one significant way: The company has specified it will pay the city $3 million.
Economic & Planning Consultants Inc. has conducted an analysis for the city finding that, based upon the benefit to SPI of converting the rink to retail, $3 million is a reasonable amount of compensation. But the consultant determined the sales tax boost to San Mateo would be modest, at just $66,000 a year.
SPI spokesman Adam Alberti and the city’s planners in charge of the project were unavailable for comment.
Whatever the Planning Commission decides, both sides expect an appeal to the City Council for the final word early next year.
Councilman David Lim said he’s looking forward to the hearings. After several years of floating preliminary plans, SPI has finally submitted a formal application for city leaders to consider.
“I know that it’s a very important and emotional topic for a lot of people, so I’m looking forward to taking in as much information as possible,” said Lim. “I the hope decision-makers on the commission and council will keep an open mind, listen to all the evidence and at the end of the day make the best decision for the community.”
Deputy Mayor Jack Matthews will step down before the council considers the project, likely next year. He said it will be a tough call for his colleagues.
He noted that a large chunk of the rink’s users were not San Mateo residents. On the other hand, while $3 million may sound like a lot of money, it wouldn’t go all that far toward improving the city’s recreational offerings, he said.
“This is one of the most difficult decisions the council will have to make in the next one or two years,” Matthews said. “How do you weigh the needs of the different constituencies and make a decision that meets the recreational needs of the community as a whole?”