Most Tuesdays, Chicoans who leave a City Council meeting after their issue of interest only miss deliberations on other matters. Similarly, once councilors make a decision, follow-up procedures usually are, well, procedural.

Not this week.

On two hotly debated items from the previous meeting — plans for South Park Drive and a lease at Chico Regional Airport — the council took sharp U-turns without much signaling or telegraphing.

Apropos of this discussion, let’s take them in reverse chronological order.

Public comment for business not on the agenda featured a handful of speakers expressing concerns about, if not outright opposition to, June 17’s approval of the car-free option for Lower Bidwell Park’s southern arterial. That 4-3 vote put Tom van Overbeek at odds with his three fellow conservatives and in alignment with the council’s three liberals.

Residents rebelled. Particularly from the adjacent neighborhood, but really from all quarters of the city, constituents inundated the four “yes”-voting councilors (and this newspaper’s letters section) with criticism. Van Overbeek described it as “a tidal wave” and noted that people he’s known for decades questioned his grip on reality.

Sitting stoically in his seat at the edge of the dais, he didn’t tip off with body language or facial expression what he intended to do later. Half-full council chambers became quarter-full after the public comment period.

Flash forward a half hour to the end of the session. During the last bit of business, the slot set for councilors to request future discussions, van Overbeek asked to reconsider his South Park Drive vote at the August meeting.

This doesn’t happen often. The last such request came in March 2023 when then-Vice Mayor and current Mayor Kasey Reynolds asked to revisit her support of commission nominees. Ultimately, the slate stood.

Expect this decision to change. Van Overbeek met with neighbors in the park; their words were obviously persuasive. As rare as it is for the council to backtrack, it’s even more uncommon for van Overbeek, who does copious homework in advance of meetings — and also tends to double down on controversy-stirring comments or votes. It’s a notable enough occurrence that colleague Mike O’Brien praised him for “courage” in reconsidering.

The vote was unanimous (6-0 with one absence, Addison Winslow). That’s often the result of such requests, as this collection of councilors most always accords the courtesy of discussion to members with propositions. Once they start relitigating, though, divisions should reemerge.

Don’t be surprised if van Overbeek’s counterproposal includes paving the three adjacent parking lots along with the roadway. Economies of scale make this a sound business decision, and he’s a successful businessman.

Another successful businessman found his fortune reversed earlier Tuesday evening when four councilors in a different configuration overturned the appeal that had gone his way.

The airport lease saga is long and complicated. Essentially, a hangar tenant who gave up his lease but remained in the premises asked to reclaim the lease when the other tenant defaulted. Airport Manager Tom Bahr gave the OK to the first tenant, Mark Spelts … but actually doesn’t have the authority to do so.

In the meantime, officials with the aegis — City Manager Mark Sorensen and Public Works Director Erik Gustafson — negotiated a new lease with a third airport tenant, Aero-Flite, looking to expand its local firefighting aircraft operation. The Airport Commission approved that compact, which Spelts appealed.

June 17, Reynolds and Katie Hawley opposed the prevailing vote that upheld Spelts’ appeal and reverted the lease to his. That required ratification of a resolution to that effect, which came to the council on the consent agenda of routine business. Hawley pulled it for separate review.

That happened — and after dais discussion, Reynolds made a motion that Hawley seconded to disapprove the resolution. They ended up flipping the wording on the advice of City Attorney John Lam, so they and others who supported the reversal needed to say “no” while those who opposed the reversal had to say “yes.”

(If you’re confused, don’t worry, so were councilors.)

Clarifications made, the motion failed 2-4, which meant Reynolds and Hawley’s position prevailed despite the rarity of both voting against their own motion. Van Overbeek and O’Brien stuck with their original stances; Bryce Goldstein and Vice Mayor Dale Bennett switched. So, the commission approval stands, and Aero-Flite has the lease.

That should be that, except Lam urged the council to ratify a resolution on this decision at the Aug. 19 meeting, by which point Winslow should be back. The resolution, like its defunct predecessor, should be on the consent agenda as well … for what that’s worth.

Reach weekend editor Evan Tuchinsky at etuchinsky@chicoer.com