« Mudflinging Begins With Gruendl | Main | Campaign Lies? »
October 16, 2006
Only "Progressives" Voted to Break The Greenline
|
| The "progressive" City Council and 3rd District
Supervisor candidates are making some pretty grand statements about saving
the Chico greenline. They’ve decided that scaring an uninformed constituency
is a higher calling than discussing real issues facing our community. Since this election season began there has been no candidate that has stated that the greenline is not an important component of land-use decisions related to Chico’s growth. I haven't seen any difference in candidate stances on the greenline. There is only one instance that I’m aware of that the Chico City Council voted in support of moving the greenline. The vote was in 2004 and it fell along ideological lines. But if you are paying attention to today’s election you might be surprised by which side voted to move the greenline. The "progressives" including Kirk and Gruendl began the process of moving the greenline. Candidates should not obscure their voting records, or accuse others of threatening to do things that they themselves have already done. This is from the Council minutes for the vote, the resolution is listed in its entirety below. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Jarvis and seconded by Councilmember Gruendl to direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment, EIR and Sphere of Influence amendment for Area 1 and to designate Area 2 as an urban reserve, with additional staff direction to communicate with LAFCo and the County about amending the greenline, and to LAFCo on a sphere of influence amendment on Areas 1 and 2. The greenline would be moved out to Mud Creek to include Bell-Muir on the urban side. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Gruendl, Jarvis, Nguyen-Tan, Kirk NOES: Bertagna, Herbert, Wahl |
| This resolution can be found on page 21(of 250) of the 2004
City Council minutes (pdf) at the city web site
January 27, 2004 Page 10 of 13 CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THREE POTENTIAL URBAN GROWTH AREAS CURRENTLY LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY’S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ON THE AGRICULTURAL SIDE OF THE GREENLINE By memorandum dated 1/20/04, the Planning Director and Senior Planner Hayes forwarded the Growth Area Feasibility Study for Council review and further direction. The Study assessed the feasibility of extending City services and facilities to the following potential growth areas: (1) Area 1 (Mud Creek), consisting of approximately 490 acres located on the City’s northwest side between Mud Creek and the Bell-Muir area, and extending westward to the U.P.R.R.; (2) Area 2 (MacIntosh/Estes), consisting of approximately 155 acres located east of Dayton Road on both sides of the U.P.R.R. tracks; and (3) Area 3 (Midway/Southgate), consisting of approximately 800 acres located on the City’s south side between the U.P.R.R. tracks and Highway 99, on both sides of the Midway. Staff identified several options for Council consideration. The Planning Director recommended that the Council direct staff to return with a more specific proposal for the planned annexation and urban development of Area 1. Addressing the City Council on this subject were David Palmerlee, Juanita Sumner, and George Nicolas. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Jarvis and seconded by Councilmember Gruendl to direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment, EIR and Sphere of Influence amendment for Area 1 and to designate Area 2 as an urban reserve, with additional staff direction to communicate with LAFCo and the County about amending the greenline, and to LAFCo on a sphere of influence amendment on Areas 1 and 2. The greenline would be moved out to Mud Creek to include Bell-Muir on the urban side. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Gruendl, Jarvis, Nguyen-Tan, Kirk NOES: Bertagna, Herbert, Wahl ABSENT: None DISQUAL: None |
Posted by Lon at October 16, 2006 10:29 AM