1. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve CA Coastal Trail California Coastal Commission May 12, 2011

2. Fitzgerald and the Midcoast CCT

3. Basic Criteria For The Development Of CA Coastal Trail Meets usage needs. Meets usage needs. Sustainable over long term with all season surface. Sustainable over long term with all season surface. Accessible. Accessible. Minimal impact to natural and historic resources and aesthetically compatible with the site. Minimal impact to natural and historic resources and aesthetically compatible with the site. Meets County Trail Plan Design Guidelines, which comply with County General Plan Policies Meets County Trail Plan Design Guidelines, which comply with County General Plan Policies

4. California Coastal Trail County’s contribution to complete the California Coastal Trail from Oregon to Mexico. County’s contribution to complete the California Coastal Trail from Oregon to Mexico. Trail would be located on the eastern perimeter of the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve following an existing alignment. Trail would be located on the eastern perimeter of the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve following an existing alignment. The 1,400 foot section trail will not in itself be a destination, and will connect accessibility to two paved streets North Lake and Cypress. The 1,400 foot section trail will not in itself be a destination, and will connect accessibility to two paved streets North Lake and Cypress. Provides educational and interpretive opportunities within the Reserve. Provides educational and interpretive opportunities within the Reserve. Provides safe and permanent crossing of San Vicente Creek with footings outside of the creek channel, above flood zone, and protective of archaeological site, and natural resources. Provides safe and permanent crossing of San Vicente Creek with footings outside of the creek channel, above flood zone, and protective of archaeological site, and natural resources. Develop a multi-use trail that meets ADA requirements. Develop a multi-use trail that meets ADA requirements.

5. Alternatives Analysis 1997-2003 Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan developed with 13 public meetings. 1997-2003 Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan developed with 13 public meetings. 2003-2005 Master Plan Program EIR prepared involving 4 public meetings. 2003-2005 Master Plan Program EIR prepared involving 4 public meetings. 2005 Master Plan and EIR approved by County Board of Supervisors 2005 Master Plan and EIR approved by County Board of Supervisors Recommendation: Coastal Trail should be multi-use and located on eastern perimeter of Marine Reserve following existing trail alignment. Recommendation: Coastal Trail should be multi-use and located on eastern perimeter of Marine Reserve following existing trail alignment.

6. Public Review of Project Eight opportunities for extensive public input: 1) October 31, 2009 - Public workshop to review both projects in the field with 30% Design Plans. 1) October 31, 2009 - Public workshop to review both projects in the field with 30% Design Plans. 2) County Planning circulated a Negative Declaration from July 1 to July 30, 2010 for both projects based on 60% Plans. 2) County Planning circulated a Negative Declaration from July 1 to July 30, 2010 for both projects based on 60% Plans. 3) At the public’s request and with County Park's concurrence the Negative Declaration public comments period was extended to August 16, 2010. 3) At the public’s request and with County Park's concurrence the Negative Declaration public comments period was extended to August 16, 2010. 4) July 12, 2010 - Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 60% Plans for both projects. 4) July 12, 2010 - Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 60% Plans for both projects. 5) September 9, 2010 - Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 90% Plans for both projects. 5) September 9, 2010 - Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 90% Plans for both projects. 6) November 9, 2010 – Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 100% Plans for both projects. 6) November 9, 2010 – Midcoast Park and Recreation Committee reviewed Draft 100% Plans for both projects. 7) December 2, 1010 - San Mateo County Park Commission reviewed and approved Draft 100% Design Plans for both projects. 7) December 2, 1010 - San Mateo County Park Commission reviewed and approved Draft 100% Design Plans for both projects. 8) San Mateo County Planning Commission January 12, 2011 reviewed and approved Coastal Development Permit and certified the Negative Declaration for the CA Coastal Trail. 8) San Mateo County Planning Commission January 12, 2011 reviewed and approved Coastal Development Permit and certified the Negative Declaration for the CA Coastal Trail.

7. Studies Done For CA Coastal Trail Development Alternatives Analysis: location, usage needs, accessibility maintenance needs, and impacts on resources. Alternatives Analysis: location, usage needs, accessibility maintenance needs, and impacts on resources. Decided multi-use and ADA accessible. Decided multi-use and ADA accessible. Prepared: Prepared: –Survey –Biological Report –Hydrological Report –Engineers Report –Archaeological Report

8. Changes to Project as a Result of Public Feedback on Mitigated Negative Declaration Reduce the width of the bridge from 12 feet to 8 feet. Reduce the width of the bridge from 12 feet to 8 feet. Reduce the width of the multi-use trail from 10 foot paved asphalt with 2 foot graveled shoulders on either side to an 8 foot multi-use trail with no improved shoulders. Reduce the width of the multi-use trail from 10 foot paved asphalt with 2 foot graveled shoulders on either side to an 8 foot multi-use trail with no improved shoulders. Changes surface from asphalt paved to a pervious colored surface. Changes surface from asphalt paved to a pervious colored surface. Added additional mitigations for environmental protection. Added additional mitigations for environmental protection.

9. Pervious Trail Surface Gravelpave 2 Option

10. 5% Slope To Meet ADA Trail Requirements Using Existing Dirt Trail Alignment

15. Coastal Commission Biologist Review Coastal Commission Biologist Review Coastal Commission Biologist reviewed the site to determine the presence of wetland. Coastal Commission Biologist reviewed the site to determine the presence of wetland. Determined there are no wetland habitats present directly adjacent to trail or that would be otherwise directly impacted by the proposed development. Determined there are no wetland habitats present directly adjacent to trail or that would be otherwise directly impacted by the proposed development.

16. Drainage Concerns Associated with Trail Gravelpave installed with permeable filter fabric and clean rock. Gravelpave installed with permeable filter fabric and clean rock. No culverts are required (unlike when trail was proposed to be paved). No culverts are required (unlike when trail was proposed to be paved).

17. Archaeological Site Before Bridge

18. If Appeal Is Not Denied… San Mateo County Parks will lose grant funding for development of this segment CA Coastal Trail. San Mateo County Parks will lose grant funding for development of this segment CA Coastal Trail. As San Vicente Creek widens the temporary bridge will have to be removed, which will restrict beach access and disrupt interpretive programs. As San Vicente Creek widens the temporary bridge will have to be removed, which will restrict beach access and disrupt interpretive programs.