Laserfiche WebLink
Item No . <br /> PC : 1-8-87 <br /> SU-87-3 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 9 . The design of the subdivision provides, to the greatest <br /> extent feasible, for the future passive or natural hearing <br /> opportunities in the subdivision because all proposed parcels <br /> are over 10 acres, which provides no constraints to orien- <br /> tation of future dwellings . <br /> PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br /> The applicant is proposing to divide an existing parcel (Assessor <br /> Parcel No. 209-230-11 ) into two parts to contain 10 . 3 and 13 . 0 <br /> acres (Lot 1 and 2 , respectively) as shown on the tentative map. <br /> The proposal was submitted originally as a Minor Subdivision in <br /> October 1985 but was not processed as such because it was deter- <br /> mined that a total of five (5) parcels were being created by the <br /> same owner . Three parcels to the south were created by the <br /> applicant under Minor Subdivision No. PM-82-23 . Three parcels <br /> were approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 1982 , after <br /> the applicant had appealed a denial by the Planning Commission. <br /> It should be noted that four (4) parcels already exist , and this <br /> request will create the fifth parcel , thus necessitating this <br /> Major Subdivision request . <br /> The project site, containing a total of 82 . 57 acres, is served by <br /> the Hansen Road extension (a private road) which bridges the <br /> California Aqueduct and is bounded by Interstate Route 580 to the <br /> south. A PG&E overhead transmission line bisects the property. <br /> No public services exist, and future development will be serviced <br /> by individual wells and septic tanks. Drainage is natural . <br /> STAFF ANALYSIS <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> The parcels identified as A, B, and C were approved by the Board <br /> of Supervisors on June 10, 1982 , as part of Parcel Map <br /> Application No. PM-82-23 and Right-of-Way Application No. <br /> RW-82-7 . The Planning Commission had denied the project on <br /> January 7 , 1982 , and the applicant appealed that action. The <br /> Board imposed the following conditions of approval : <br /> 1 . The private right-of-way shall be redrawn to reflect the <br /> actual course of that right-of-way. <br /> a. The map shall conform to the generally more gradual cur- <br /> vature of the right-of-way as it commences at the north- <br /> west corner of the property line. <br />