CCMIN101596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Roe, 5846 Corte Brazos, supported the letter to the Board of Supervisors as written. The number one issue is public access to the Fair Board in order to have some input with regard to Fairground activities. He agreed with limiting terms. The City of Pleasanton is entitled to an active voice in land use on the Fairgrounds. Fairground uses affect the entire city and its citizens. The Fairgrounds is at a major entry to downtown. Pleasanton should have input on commercial operations that are not part of the normal operations. He cited problems and prior undesirable proposals (e.g. a cardroom, a waterslide, an expanded operation of the race track). There is still a problem with the driving range lights. He believed the goal was to emphasize the positive impacts and help the Fairgrounds succeed, but not at the expense of Pleasanton. He thought the audit was very well done. Ernest Jones, 1725 Rose Avenue, believed the Fair Board does not care about its neighbors. He complained about the trailer park and his inability to develop his property. He perceived the Fairgrounds as a liability to Pleasanton not an asset. The City requires other corporations to pay for services, yet the Fair Board pays nothing. David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, felt the Council knows all the issues that inhibit growth surrounding the Fairgrounds. He believed Ms. Michelotti was wrong in the way she negotiates with the Fair Board. Telling them up front that you are not willing to go to court is a mistake. When he approached them with complaints about the lights at the driving range, he got the runaround until he threatened litigation. He urged Council to take a hard look at how it can get input to the Fair Board. He believed the annual County Fair is the fourth priority of the Fair Board and that horseracing was the source of the most money. Ms. Michelotti believed the best approach was to start with issues that can be agreed to by both paxties and then proceed to work out differences. She believed the City of Pleasanton had the right to control land uses and was happy to get reinforcement from the audit findings. She did not think a conditional use permit was the proper vehicle to force a showdown in Court. The audit gives an opportunity to start negotiations. Mr. Jones indicated he was tired of waiting and was prepared to go to court to allow development of his property. In addition he believed that the Bay Meadows proposal is still on the horizon. He suggested lowering the race track and building a berm around it to minimize impacts. If horseracing is not expanded, he thinks the Fairgrounds will bring in undesirable uses. Ms. Dennis supported sending the proposed letter to the Board of Supervisors. She referred to a letter sent to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors urging the Santa Clara Fairgrounds to convert to more family oriented uses and felt these fairground issues will sweep the state. Pleasanton is not the only city facing such issues. Pleasanton has done a good job with its economic development and has a lot to offer as far as assistance to the Fair Board and mutual goals. -14- 10/15/96