San Mateo commission approves Shoreview skate park resurfacing with lighting as bid alternate

The San Mateo Parks & Recreation Commission voted to approve a final improvement plan to resurface Shoreview Skate Park and to include a lighting bid alternate, a move commissioners said aims to preserve the park’s usability while keeping options open for future upgrades.

Senior project manager King Leung presented a diagram showing base bid work (pavement replacement) and a bid alternate for a sport-grade LED lighting system. “The pavement in the yellow is the base bid scope of work, and the sport lighting system is a bid alternate,” Leung said, adding the alternate would be pursued only if bids and funding allow.

The item drew substantial public comment from skate park users and instructors. Ryan Motzic, a longtime skateboarder and advocate, urged a more ambitious rebuild and said the current plan felt insufficient: “I think this should go back to the drawing board,” he said, calling the proposal “deeply disappointing.” Mike Benitez, who runs the city’s skateboard instruction program, told commissioners that users expected resurfacing, lighting and expansion; “Now it looks like … it’s either lighting or resurfacing. No expansion at all. That’s super disappointing.”

Staff said the commission had previously ranked options and that resurfacing was the top priority, lighting second and expansion third. Project constraints make expansion more complicated and costly: Leung explained that expanding the paved skate surface would trigger stormwater (“green infrastructure”) requirements and likely require rebuilding drainage patterns, which would substantially increase costs.

Commissioners and staff discussed lighting design, timing and mitigation for light spill. Leung said the lighting alternate would be a sport-grade LED system with focused distribution and cutoff shielding “to focus the light on that sport park area” and to limit spill to neighboring properties; he also confirmed a timer will be included in the specifications. When asked about reusing existing poles and wiring, Leung said the site lacks compatible poles and that the structural and electrical conditions preclude reuse.

Public commenters asked about budget and schedule. Staff said no additional funding is currently secured for the lighting alternate; including lighting will depend on bid results, grant opportunities, or other funding (including potential private donations or Park & Rec Foundation support). Staff estimated roughly 10–12 months to prepare bid documents, get approvals and advertise, and approximately six months for construction after contract award — about an 18-month total timeline if everything proceeds.

After discussion, a commissioner moved that the commission accept the base bid and include the lighting alternate; a second was recorded and the roll-call vote was unanimous in favor (Chair Fields — yes; Vice Chair Witcher — yes; Commissioner Kiapi — aye; Commissioner Ocampo — aye; Commissioner Trapp — yes). The motion authorizes staff to proceed with final bid documents that include the base resurfacing scope and the lighting bid alternate; staff will return with bids and any requested funding recommendations to the City Council for contract award and budget approval.

Commissioners and staff also reiterated the process for residents to report any construction-related property damage: staff said neighbors should report damage promptly so the city can investigate and, if warranted, file a claim and coordinate with a contractor.