Laserfiche WebLink
4v~~s"N~°y f PLEASANTON <br />CITY o <br />•~/ . ~ <br />~~~~° Planning Commission <br />MiiD t <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />~CtB : February 8, 1972 <br />Time : 8 : oo PM <br />PIaCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />MATTERS FOR <br />COMMISSION'S REVIEI <br />He further explained that the purposi <br />of the Ordinance is specifically <br />spelled out in the draft of the Ordi~ <br />nance. Mr. Castro and the City <br />Attorney have reviewed this matter <br />together and at this time Mr. Castro <br />had no additions to make. <br />There was brief discussion by the <br />Commission and then, as no one else <br />wished to speak, the Public Hearing <br />was closed. <br />Chairman Garrigan then entered a <br />resolution recommending to Council <br />that this proposed Ordinance be <br />adopted. This was seconded by <br />Commissioner Hirst and carried. <br />Commissioner Pereira felt that it <br />should be pointed out that perhaps <br />the Commission could request some ~, <br />direction in order to designate cer- <br />tain undeveloped properties for this <br />Ordinance. Mr. Castro indicated that <br />this is being prepared by the staff <br />and will be submitted at a later datE <br />Use of Mobile Commercial Units. <br />Mr. Castro described for the <br />Commission's benefit certain situa- <br />tions that have been occurring <br />recently where certain businesses, <br />using a mobile van, are attempting <br />to obtain business licenses within <br />the City, for example, a tax service <br />This type of operation would involve <br />a mobile unit traveling within the <br />City doing business at various resi- <br />dential areas. The City Attorney <br />has indicated that the Ordinance is <br />very vague in delineating standards <br />-3- <br />