Laserfiche WebLink
292 <br /> <br /> process any further. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she attended many of the meetings as well <br /> and felt that those meetings were good only to a certain point. <br /> She added that at this time, nothing would be gained by further <br /> discussing the issues as many of the Committee members were not <br /> ready to change their minds. She noted that technically, the issue <br /> can go on the ballot in a timely manner in November 1991, but she <br /> questioned the product of the ballot language. She inquired what <br /> the deadline would be if Council opted to put the issue on the <br /> June 1992 ballot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that there is an 88-day requirement to have <br /> a ballot measure at an election. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr said she had always been under the impression that <br /> the issue was intended for the November 1991 ballot and felt people <br /> are expecting it at that time. She indicated that November 1991 <br /> would be best. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that he favored going forward with the <br /> possibility of getting the issue on the November 1991 ballot. He <br /> expressed concern that nothing else would be gained by going over <br /> the issues any further and that the citizens of Pleasanton are <br /> expecting to see the matter on the November 1991 ballot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated that she had no expectations as to when <br /> the issue would be ready for the ballot. She felt giving the <br /> process plenty of time was very important, but that if the plan is <br /> good, it would not matter if it goes on the ballot in November 1991 <br /> or June 1992. She emphasized the importance of giving the citizens <br /> and the Planning Department sufficient time to study the issues and <br /> to analyze them. She concluded that while she is not opposed to <br /> having it on the November 1991 ballot, she would feel more <br /> comfortable if it went in June 1992. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that he had no objections to putting the <br /> issue on the November 1991 ballot to let the citizens decide the <br /> matter, if Staff can come up with a good product within the given <br /> time constraints. He indicated, however, that while November 1991 <br /> is not a crucial date, he would not want to delay it until the <br /> November 1992 General Election, which would include other major <br /> issues. <br /> <br /> - 12 - <br /> 7-2-91 <br /> <br /> <br />