CCMIN110795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti stated that this is the first discussion of this item by the Council; Council has to decide whether or not even to consider it. After that, several public hearings will have to happen before the card room were approved. Ms. Purselle commented she is asking Council not to allow any type of gaming in Pleasanton. She did not feel it was appropriate or a healthy environment for a family community. She asked Council not to consider this issue. David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, hoped the Fairgrounds can keep their racing days and agreed with the Mayor that maybe a letter should be sent to the Racing Association. He felt the Fairgrounds should reflect what is best about the County. It's a celebration of pride and the history is based on agriculture. There was no further testimony. Mr. Pico stated he understood the value of the Fair to the City of Pleasanton. It enriches the community. He understood its financial difficulties and is willing to work to advocate anything that Council can do to retain the racing dates. Card players appear to have plenty of options and no lack of card rooms to play at in the Bay Area. There are valid reasons why we have a state law requiring a three year moratorium on creation of new card rooms. There is a valid reason why there are state laws that require a vote of the people for card rooms or gaming establishments. If this proceeds, the City has to demand that the vote of the people take place and not use a technicality in the law to avoid it. His family has had first hand experience with compulsive gambling problems and this has a significant impact on his decision and thoughts on this issue. The projected revenue for the City for the extension of gaming to the Fairgrounds is not worth it. He will not support this issue. Mayor Tarver agreed with the public input. He would not support this issue without the community approving of it. He did not think the proposal would win a vote to put a card room in the City. He was attracted by the potential for the revenue and felt the community might say that since there is already a gaming facility now, and if it were properly run, the community could benefit. He thought it was unlikely that the community would support the card room. The only way he would support considering the ordinance further would be if it will go before a vote of the people and that the applicant (Alameda County Fair Board or the person who wants to run the facility) foot the bill for the election. If it were something that had a chance of passing, that might be different. He did not think it would have a chance. Pleasanton will follow the seven out of eight communities that have rejected the concept. He is concerned that if the Fair doesn't keep financially solvent, the Alameda County Fair will be gone and the City will look at what to do with the property. The City needs to do everything it can to ensure that the racing stay at the Fairgrounds and he wanted to do everything possible to get behind that effort, to take it to the cities in Alameda County, to get everyone making sure that the Legislature understands that racing at the Fair is part of the City's history. He preferred to make more efforts to retain racing at the Fair so that the Fair does not have to look at alternative ways to generate revenue. It's an issue that concerns him in the City's relationship with 11/07/95 -21-