MlNUT~ ITEM This Ca!er?dar Item No._(J_1:/::._

.J • • ~· '"" ... ern wes .lftroJed as tv1mu.- ,. . No.

CALENDAR ITEM NO • C 1 4 (CONTD)

2. This project is situated on State land identifie4 as possessing significant environment:al values pur·suant to P .R, C. 6370.1, and is classifieg in a use category, Class B, which authorizes Li1J1i ted U s·e.

Staff has .coordin:ated thi..s project with. those~ qgenci.es and organizat~ons which nomj,riated t:he. site as containing significant envii·onmental values •. They· have found ~hj_§ .. ~)roject to be compatible with their nomin~ttion.

APPROVALS OB~AINED: The proposed j:uelbreak will cross a ·zso-foot

EXHIBITS:

easement granted to t!:he Metropolitai'1 Water District of SQuthern Cal±fornia by tqe .Divisi9n of Sr:ate Lands {predecessor of the Cotr.mission) on St~pt:ember 18, 1934. The said easernentiextends southwesterly across the·N~: of the s~·of $ection 16. Since the State rese·rved the· right to grant easements and rights-q~~~Y ~or the construction of stre.ets, r1:>ads and h~ghways only over and across th•: said eas¢ment, the USFS was reqµested to and has. ~ecured written permissLon to construct the fuelbreak over the ]?~:strict' s under.ground aqueduct easement.-A copy of the letter· of permission is on file in the office of the State Lands Commission.

A. Land Descript'ion. B. Location Map.

c. Negat~ve Declara.tion No. 280.

IT IS RECOMHMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:

1. DETERMINE THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT BY THE COMMISSION AFTER CONSULTATION wri:H RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE Ac;E:NCIE~.

2. CERTI'FY THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. '280 HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE ~rITH CEC2A}' THE STAT!; EIR GUIDELINES AND THE COMMISSION 1 S ADMJ:,NISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, AND. THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED.AND.CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION COtlTAINED THJ:REIN. T6GETHER WITH COMMENTS RECEIVED ·DURING THE REVIJ·:w PROCESS. ,,

-;, ... -

CALENDAR ITEM ~~· C 1 4 (CONTD)

3. DETERMINE, THAT THE PROJ,ECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANt EFFECT o· ~ THE ENVIRONME.NT ..

4. FIND THAT GRANTING OF THE AGREEMENT WILL HAVE NG ·sIGNLF.ICAN.T EFFECT UPON ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACi'ERISTICS IDENTIFIED . PURSUANT TO SECTION 6370.:l, OF THE P.R.C.

5. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A FUELBREAK AGREEME~~ ~ITH THE UNITE.D STATES FOREST ~1ERVICE TO PROVIDE FOR. CCNSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FUELBREAK ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE.A 'PART HEREOF. . . .

-3'-

I

CALEND'.~R PAG-E

MINµ'r'1-_Pt\9~ ..

EXHIB iT '"fJ."

LAND DESCRIPTION w 22413

A strip of California Stnte school land sjtuated in Section 16, T1N, R10W, SBM, 1-n the County of ~os Angeles, Stai:e of Cali:fornia, said strip being 300 feet wide, ViO feet on each side of the fo11owing describeci center line:

BEGINNING at a point on the north line of said Secticm ·16, said point lyjng 125.0 feet easterly of the section corner corrroon to SE!Ct~ons 8, 9, 16 and 17 and thence the following 13 courses:

1. S S0°E 395~0 feet 2. s 1o~E 295.0 feet 3. S ·10°w 25()_0 feet 4. s 35°E 400.0 feet 5. s 10°w 650.0 feet 6. South 350.0 feet 7. s 2s0 w 1 so .o ·feet 8. s 2s~E 30D.O feet 9. S 20°W 175.0 feet

10. s 40°E soo.o feet 11. S 55°£ 750.0 feet 12. s 10°E 650.0 feet 13. S 60°E 1.000 .. 0 feet; thence southerly to a ooint on: toe south line of said Section 16, which po_in.t Hes-3,125 feet east" of the sec ti on cor-P.er ·common to Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21 .

5UBJECi TO an a9reement as indicated per letter of November 24, 198,H betwe_en the Metropol i'tan Water District of Southern Ca.lifornia and the U.S. Oepart.:. ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv.ice, Angele~ National Forest, a c,

EXH IB iT "B" w 22413

-r·--

JfAl! OJI CAUfOIHIA -~---~·..-.--- -...,..-l&:ICl,,_ ______ ,.....,...,.;......,,......,....,u

·ST ATE LANDS COMN\ISSJON ICE.,NETH CORY. Con troll,.~ Mtl(( CURB. L1l'ur~na1t1 Co~•.rrtor J.IAAY ANN GRAV~, 011.ctol'ol Fit14nc.

\

j

f£/Dreft NEGATIVE .DECLARATION LJ!inaJ.

Project Titl.e: U.S.D.A. - }"'orest: Service

• O, IROW~ Jll •• • ~-..,-, ,!" rm ..-::a=-

EXECUl'IVE OFFICS 1807.-.131~ ScrHt' S.C:V--1~. California 9!!814

WILLIAM 11. NORTHAOP• .bKuttff Offlcpr

EIR ·ND: 280

Project location: Section 16. T.lN. R.lOW. SBM, near Azusa, Los Angel.es County .

.. Project Description: ~:onstruct:ion o:E a 300 foot wide. 6. 785 fpot

long fue11:.1reak al,:mg Va11 Tassel Ridge, containing 46·. 73 ac.re1s.

This NEGATrJE DECr..tP.il'ION is _prepared pur:suant to the require:~nts. of the California Env::.1:oru::ient,al. Quality Act (Section ;~1000 et. sea .. oi the P.wbl.ic Resources wde~, the State EIR Guidelines (Sec1:ion 15000 et. seq., Title 14,. o! the California Admi;~istrative Code), and th•~ Sta-:e .Lanes Coc:tission re:gula-tioos {Sect::i.on 2501 et. seq., Title 2, oi the Califor:iia Ad.":Iini.st::-at:ive Code).

Based upon the attacheli Initial Study, it has lieen found th.at:

{ff the project will not ha.Ye a si&.~i!~,c-Allt d:.re:ct on the envir.o::ment.

L/ t"b.c attached. i:citigahon meaeures iii:!,: avoid potentialJ,y sig:ii!icazi·t effect.!.

Contact Person: Ted '!. Fukushima Stat:1e Lands Commission · 1807·-lJth Street Sacramento, CA. 95814

- (916;1322-781)

I

STA TE LANDS COMMiSslON

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST • File Ref.: W 22413 Fotrn 1:J.:ZO (7/801

e 9ACKGROU!\ID INFORMATION A. Appiic.:in t- :.'. S . D. A. - Forest: Servi-:...:· e~ __ ,;;.;:..____:.. ______________ _

Angeles National Farese

150 S Los Rob lcs Ave. , f!300 Pasadena, CA 91101

----~-"-----------------------------:·------.......,.--------------12/ 1 -, 180 B. Oiecl:.lis·: Date: __ _... ___ _... ____ _

c. Contac• Person _..:D:..:a:.;n~...:C:...o:..h:..:' :..:~:..:n..:...... _________ ..,. _______ "':',;. _________ "':'"_· _____ _

Telepho_ne: _.(_9_1_6 _ _,_) __ 3_2_2_-_7_8_0_5 ___ _

o. Purpose. :'o facilitate ~ontz:ol o·; wildfirL,~nd retjtice size. of ~ires.

E. loc•Jt;on. Sect:icn 1~" T.lN, R lOW, SBM. near Azusa, ~s Angeles Ccunty.

Construction of a 300 __ foot wide, 6,785 foot' _long fuelbreak F. ~scnpt.on. -----------------~·:;;.._ _______ ...;.. __ ..._ ______ ~·--_;;;._ __ -..,.-____ _ along Van 'Tassel Ridge primarily by bl.adt.:... Containing 46. 7°3 acre~:. -

G. l?erson.s Contac:ted: __ N_O_TE ___ : __ TI __ li_s __ c_h_e_c_k_l_i._· s_· _t,_c_o_n_s_t_i_· _t_ut_e_s_a_b_r_i_e_f_c_o_m_ .... P_i_l_a_t_i_· o_n _ __, oj: a 1973 ·Envi'.'-"orunental Analysis Report •and --------------- ' .

·--------------·=a-..:;:1~9~7~8--"'E~-~A~·~R~---~~~u~o~p~l~e=m=e=n=-;.t._b~y,.__~t=h=e..__U~·~S~·--F~o~r~e=s~·t--~------------------'S;...e.-..rv ....... _i_c_.e.._·_w_h.....__i,_c_·n"--addres s -this project .

. .. ·~

Subsequent to completion of the E .. A.R. and ~~------------------

5 up pl em en t. thLent·ire~te-Owned_ parcel

i~len,tifj_ed apa"le suff:ered the ·nHl adverse ---~--------e-j.~ect of the recen·t Southern California wildfire'.!..:_

___________ ,_TI ........ 1u ..... s ........ __.c .... o .... n....._..s_.t...,r .... u=..-...c :- ion of the f ue lbreak, as no.t'.-e .. d"'"---

be low wi 11 have virtr.ially no adverse environment;si..l_ impact.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. (Explain.a// ''yes" and "maybt:"amWf!rs}

A. Earth. Will the proposal result rn:

·1. Unstab:e earth.eond1t1ons or changes tn geologic substructures? I •• I • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 c rn :Z. Disruptions. disc:.la~ments. compaction. or overcovering C·f the soil? ••••••• ~ ••••••••••• _. •••••• : 0 C Qg 3. 1*-;.n;e in·tCpography or ground surfi~ r!lief fe.~turesi' . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • l~J C 0 •l. T'".-::'1~:.auct1on, covermg •. o~ moddie

B. Air. \'.Jil! tho: propos:il 1esult.

1. Sut1t:inu:i1 air P.mm1~\1ons mb'!rs of any species of animals (bird:, la.nd animals including •eptiles, fish &:1nd shelU1:Sh. benth1c organism\, or insects I? • , • • ........... , ••••••••••• ~ ......... .

:' Reduction of the numtw.rs of any umciue, rare or endangered species of anima!s? •••••.•••••••••••••

3. Introduction of new species of anim~!~-1.nto-an'Jrea, or resuJt in a barriei· to ~e m=gration or movement of inirria1~? . • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "·" • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••• -.......... -. • • • • • • • • • ••

4. Oeter1orat1on to e"

H. Uuitl Ujl!. Will the proposal result in:

................ ~····••••,••···················-·

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... •' ..... .

.DD]] p·p ~ DD~ D [j ~

DD :R1

1. A substanual ;;Heration of the present or planned land use ol:an area] ••••••••••••••••••• : •.• • • • • 0 ·o ~ I. Natural Rt."sourt:t•s. Will the proposal result 1n:

t. Increase in the rate of use of any natural re:1ources? •..•••.••••• , ••••••••• · •••••••.•••••• ~ ••

2. Subu~nt1al depletion of an':,1 nonrenewabli; re5ources7 •••. . . " ........................ , ... .

CALE:NOA'A PA9~

MINUTE PAGE

.DD I~ 0 D txl

·.

j .:

.

J. Risk 11[ C.:p-.·t Docs the proposal result in: \ 1. A risk of .Jn ~xplos1on' or the re. ~ of hazardo,"!s .substarn:es (includinq, but no,

chemicals. or r.:Jc.l1auon) m the event of an accident or ups er. con::littons7 ••••••••••••••••••••.•••

)ited to, oil. pesticides,

2. Pou1ble interference with emergency r~sponse pl;in or an ~rnergencv evaG1Jation plan? •••••• • • • • • • • • •

Popu/at11m Will the proposal ri:sult.m:

~. Th~-..:i!!:r>!taQr• d1smbut1on. density. or growth rate of thll human POl?ulation of the :rea7 ••••••••••••

Yes Mta•/b!• No

D CI iRJ D ·CJ !Kl

0 0 [X] L. i/ous1itJZ. Will the ,:.roc_o5;al result m:

1. Affecting ex1rnng ho-.!smg. or create a-demand for 3dditiO'l.JI housing? ••••••••••.••••••.•••• ~, ••. ,. 0 (tJ IX] M. Transportatiun/Circulation. Will the proposal re·sult in:

1. Generation of substantial addi~ional vehi~ Jlar mov::ment? ••••••••• , •• ·-· ••••••••••••••••••••

2. Affecting existing parking facilities, or create a demand for new parking?. • • ,. • • • • • • • • • •. • •••• •-· •

3. Subst

. . • # ... ' • ,. • Ji • •

i. Cuftur.:I P...-~m1rc

1. 1;111 the propcsa1 resuu '" t•;e ,ute~.mon of or the destru;_t1on of'" prehntonc 1lf.historic archeoloyi_eal site? .

•• Will t.'te orooos_JI result '" dthers.; physu::al or' aesthetic .. ~fe.:ts ;;:-, a prehistoric or hi~toric building. .tructuri:. :J• ob1ect, •.•• _ • • • • • • • • . . . . • . • . • • • • • . • • ••.•••••••••.•••••

3. Doe> ;nc proµos.i• nave "1e.potent.a1 to c..Ju~e a phy.~1cal change which woul~ affect unique ethnic i;ultural y;dues1 . . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4. Will the proposdl restrrc.t existing zehg1ous or sacred uses w11h11 the potential impact area? ••...•••••••

U. Mar.claffJI')" F111c!m1:s of Si~ni}"icance

J. Does the ;>ro1ect have the·"otent1.il to degrade the Quality of th~·e nviroriment., feduce the habitat of a fish or w1ldhfe spec:es. cause .i r1sh __,, .. ,.,.ldhfe population to Jtop below. sP.lhliiia1ni. •9:1evels. threa~!?n to eliminate a plant or .:1nima1 commun•tv. :educ:e the number·or resrnct :!le range of;;1 r.are or endangered plant or aml'Tl31 or e1tmrnate import.mt ex.J."T!Ples of the.major-yer.ci:ls of·Cahfornaa hi#ory or·prehistory] ••••••••

2. Does «he pro;ect-have the potent1a1 to achieve shgrqerm, to th1~ disadvai;,iag1~ of.long·terrn. environmental • goals? ........................................ ,, •. ·-· •.••••. • •• ~ ......... ·-• •••••••

3. Does the pro1ect have 1rnp.:ict:..·wh1ch are ;ndividually limited, but.cumulatively (.Onsiderabie7 .......... .

4. Does t.'le pro1ect n.we environinen,al .effects wh1chcw1ll c-ause su bstanttal adverse effec+.s on human beings, either directly or induectly? .••.•••••••••••••••••••• , ••• , ••.•.•••••••••••••••••••

OlSCUSSIO~.f·OF·ENVlRONMENTAL EVALUATION (See Commenrs,Attached)

-'(u 'Maybe No

CJ~ o 0 fK] q 0 {ii 0 0 IX1 D

q Q fi1 0 0 G9 0 D 00

o o· an

A • .3. Feature modification involves· com; truction 0£ a 300 foot -~Jde, 6,785 foot long fuelbreak.

M.l.

N.l.

R.l.

Fuelbreak will provide access for recreational. eme~gency, and fir~ pa~rol vahicles.

Fuelbre.ak will proYide access £or ..:'ire fightin_g· vehicles, equipment, and manpower.

Fir-e protect·lon $·ervices will be ~nhanceg and· wildfi.re contro+ wi,11 be f;!!cilit:ated.

In -genera:. the visitit:'g pu~~ic ha~ accepted the fiic·c that for.est fuelbreaks ate a n~~essary rire pioteccion measure; this may'~id in mitigatir.€'. the fuelbreaks' a.es t:het::i;c impac.t.

T.1-4. To be determined by the St.ate Qff!.ce of Historic _!'reservation (Regional Office, UCLA). Tl:ie ;~.A. R. 1:-ndi·cates tha1: ci)ere .:i.re no recorded historical or cultura: sites in the project .area.

JETERMIN.:. TION

)n t~e basis 'Jf th1S-1mt1al ev;.;luation: ..., -ltJ • :.no :ne .::•cPOsed pro1ect COul.D l\OT h.ive .i s19n1f1c:ant effect c n the en.,.1ronment,"1nd a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiil

be prepar~d. · -, _J • fino 1h•t .:11nouql'l tne propo.eel pro1ect cou1d h.lve o s19mf1c.:int eff ~ct on the envaronment •. ihere-w1ll not be a ~igt·"fic;ant effec:r

•n_-, l " ~:no ine propo~ea oro1ecr MA f na .. e a l•gn,tic..mt eff