comments

Rocklin Chronicles: Feb. 3

-A +A
5 YEARS AGO Feb. 1, 2006: Rocklin officials meet on Downtown Plan — Rocklin’s city council, redevelopment agency and planning commission were invited to a special joint meeting Tuesday night to review and improve the conceptual plan for Downtown Rocklin. The Downtown Plan committee plan, along with the consultants, so this is the first time that the plan will be seen by the council and planning commission,” said Councilman Peter Hill, also the chairman of the Downtown Plan committee. Rob Braulik, assistant city manager, said that the meeting’s purpose was to review the plan and —if it met the groups’ approval-direct city staff to incorporate it into the city’s general plan for an overall environmental impact report. Time for public comment was also on the agenda, through Braulik said there will be more opportunities for the community’s input, as it goes through the formal approval proves as part of the general plan. “The plan that’s proposed Tuesday is the plan that the community suggested to us that we create,” he said. “It’s based on considerable input already, but that’s not to say that they can’t provide more.” The plan calls for a mix of residential, commercial and civic uses in the area around the intersection of Rocklin Road and Pacific Street-from Meyers Street to Fifth Street, and Farron Street to Midas Avenue. 15 YEARS AGO Feb. 6, 1996: Mulholland says training session was appropriate — Watchdogs of the Rocklin Unified School District were barking up the wrong tree last week when thy complained about a special training session, according to District Superintendent Frank Mulholland. Some parents accused the district of improprieties related to the scheduling of a three-day “interest based training” session for teachers, administrators and board members which was held at St. Peter and St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Rocklin on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Feb. 1-3 Concerned citizen Mark Forbes said he and others felt it was inappropriate for representative of the teacher’s association to be training school officials. He compared it to an automobile manufacturer getting contract negotiation instructions from the Unite Auto Workers Union. Forbes also said the sessions were in violation of the Brown Act because at least three board members would be in attendance and notice of the meetings has not been properly advertised. There was also a question about the school funds used to pay for the training. In response to numerous calls and visits from upset parents, the district issued a press release Friday, answering the allegations. According to the letter, the meeting was an attempt to master problem solving techniques for interest-based bargaining. “Many other districts have found this approach to be highly effective not only in labor management relations but also in classroom management, curriculum design and many matters directly affecting the quality of education provided to students.” It said. 40 YEARS AGO Feb. 4, 1971: In The President’s Budget. $34 Million Is Asked For Dam — Expenditure of $34,150,000 on the auburn Dam-Folsom South Canal Project during the 1971-72 fiscal year has been recommended in President Nixon’s budget proposal to Congress, which was submitted last week. The money would allow continued work on the new Auburn-Foresthill Bridge and on the project’s diversion tunnel. A contract for the latter facility will be let this spring. It also will allow completion of access roads to the site of the dam and powerhouse and for construction of a geology materials laboratory, a garage and a warehouse, all in the Auburn area. Two additional reaches of the Folsom South Canal in Sacramento County are included in the 1971-72 proposal. The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation’s final 1970-71 budget for the Auburn-Folsom South work was $21,716,000. Congressman Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson of Placer County, a co-author of the Auburn-Folsom Sou8th legislation, said he was “pleased that we are moving ahead on this project and the New Melones development (for which $16.54 million was recommended),” but he registered disappointment that lesser amounts were included for the USBR and Army Corps of Engineers’ projects in the Second Congressional District. The Rocklin Chronicles are compiled by Sue Choate. No editing changes are made to the copy so that the entries appear as originally published.