Front Page  »  

Arroyo Grande planning commissioner retains his seat

November 11, 2015
Nick Tompkins

Nick Tompkins

By KAREN VELIE

The Arroyo Grande City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to retain John Mack on the Planning Commission following a conflict of interest complaint filed by developer Nick Tompkins. A vote that surprised most attendees at the meeting.

Following an unanimously vote by the Planning Commission to reject Tompkins proposal for a residential and commercial development at Courtland Street and Grand Avenue, primarily because of parking and density concerns, Tompkins filed a conflict of interest complaint against Mack with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

Before the complaint reached the FPPC, council members Barbara Harmon, Jim Guthrie and Kristen Barneich voted to place the removal of Mack on the council’s Nov. 10 agenda.

Since that vote to consider Mack’s removal, the FPPC determined Mack did not have a conflict of interest as detailed in Tompkin’s complaints.

On Tuesday, during public comment, Tompkins laid out his reasons for reporting Mack to the FPPC. Tompkins argued that when Mack quit claimed his home to another, he had violated conflict of interest rules.

“We must do what is right for the city, we need unbiased reviews,” Tompkins said before asking the council to remove Mack from the Planning Commission.

However, during an emotion charged public comment period, only three people supported Tompkins request while 12 speakers asked the council to retain Mack.

Robert Montoya, a professional engineer, argued that having an architect and planner with 30 year experience examining projects was in the best interest of the city. Several speakers questioned Tompkins motivation for seeking Mack’s removal from the Planning Commission.

“I believe Tompkins thinks Mack may be a threat to future projects,” Montoya said.

AG City Council 6

Following public comment, Barneich noted the inconsistencies in statements made by Tompkins and those made by Mack and his supporters as part of the reason that Mack should lose his commission seat.

For example, Barneich said she was concerned about reports that Mack had not transferred the property to a former girlfriend he had bought the home with, but had signed it over to one of his children. However, county records show the property was deeded to Paula Renner, Mack’s former girlfriend.

Along with Guthrie, Barneich voiced concerns about Mack quit claiming his home to another the morning of the Planning Commission vote.

“Mack has a right to speak his mind,” Guthrie said. “I am concerned about the quit claim deed.”
Guthrie then noted his intention to have Mack removed from the commission.

Mayor Jim Hill and Councilman Tim Brown noted that the FPPC did not find a conflict of interest as they both voiced support for Mack’s continued public service in part because of his planning background.

“Arroyo Grande has a history of poor planning; box stores on the freeway and the Brisco Road interchange,” Hill said. “I have found that Mack does ask the difficult questions.”

In addition, Hill questioned why in this case several council members were seeking to remove a public servant because of a rejected conflict of interest complaint, while if verified the FPPC lodges a fine and the public figure generally keeps their seat.

“The penalty should fit the crime,” Hill said.

Harmon, who made the original motion to consider Mack’s removal, said the issue was transparency and the appearance of a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, Harmon made the motion to retain Mack on the Planning Commission, which prompted Guthrie and Barneich to reluctantly vote with the majority.

Following the City Council’s vote to keep Mack on the Planning Commission until his term expires in early 2017, Mack said he is considering running against Guthrie and Barneich for a seat on the council in the Nov. 2016 election.

“I am definitely considering running for the City Council,” Mack said. “I enjoy serving the public.”

Get links to local news stories, like CCN on Facebook.


Loading...
Subjects:                         
Related:


57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There were no real winners last night. So much turmoil and drama for what? So Mr. Mack can retain his seat AFTER being judged by 3 council members for a seemingly endless amount of time. Lucky him (or not).

Hard to pick the biggest loser, may have been a 4-way tie.

All those attacking Mack looked foolish for agreeing to this battle BEFORE the FPPC had decided whether or not to investigate.

Barneich wins the “say one thing-do the @ss opposite” award. Her strong convictions went up in smoke once Harmon changed HER mind…what a mess!

Guthrie was in full campaign mode, leading the charge one hour, retreating the next.

NKT came off as an extremely poor loser…oh wait, his project was approved!

NKT is a poor sport winner.

Best news of the night (aside from the planning commission remaining at full staff), Mr. Tompkins undeniable claim that Courtland and Grand is his LAST project in AG.


Looks like the city of AG is the big winner after all.


0

Yes, I caught that comment too from Mr. Tompkins. No more projects from him for Arroyo Grande, YEAH, but do you actually think he will keep his word? Also, Ms. Barneich seemed so annoyed to vote with the majority, kinda like a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum.


Can’t help but also see many of the points Ms. Barneich and Mr. Guthrie made as reasons to remove Mr. Mack were the same ones most AG voters made during the Adams mess, especially when she said what concerned her was the appearance of impropriety, kinda like a certain tea party back in July. Which we now know was not the first time, but then she was all about keeping Mr. Adams because the “internal” investigation found no policies were violated, well the FPPC finding no merit in the complaint, but this time she was get rid of him just because it looked bad. Come on Ms Barneich how did it look for Mr Adams and Ms McClish? both which you said should keep there jobs, which in the end cost the city taxpayers several 10’s of thousands of dollars. Your a little hypocritical don’t you think?


Plus Ms. Barenich you looked pretty pathetic making your unfounded accusations about Mr. Mack making his quick claim deed to his child or such. Easy choice if I need to choose from Mr. Mack or Ms. Barneich for city council, my vote goes for Mr. Mack.


0

Barneich, Guthrie and Harmon all doled out a good dose of cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me. It was torture to watch, burn him at the stake kind of stuff.

I’m hoping they felt worse than Mr Mack at night’s end, they deserve it.


0

Today’s 2 day old Trib says that Mack felt like “It was a modern day lynching”


Hard to know who is feeling worse today: John Mack or Barbara Harmon.


My God, they did not even do this to Steve who LIED to the Council, LIED to the Police and LIED to the Citizenry!


Must be like pins and needles to work at City Hall again: a new boss who you do not know what her expectations are, a City Council willing to publicly crucify a resident, and a developer that is trying to own the whole town.


There was no Good that came out of that agenda item. SHAME on THEM

Kudos to BROWN and HILL for trying to prevent this ordeal!


0

Hill was extremely gracious to offer Barbara an out at the beginning of the meeting.

Too bad she chose not to take it.


0

I have an out for Ms. Harmon too, it comes at the end of her first and hopefully only term on the council. Unless she starts representing the voters instead of a certain developer the voters will give her walking papers.


0

I swear this council with Barniech,Harmon and Guthrie reminds me of the 3 musketeers.


All for one, one for all.


I hope the public realizes who we have making decisions for this city and it’s residents. Between these 3 and Teresa McClish, no wonder we can’t get any businesses to come to our town.


And how nice was that of Nick Tompkins to say he is going to donate 1/2 the profits from Cherry Lane to Mission Prep catholic school. If Mr. Tompkins is such a great guy and loves this city so much, why not donate the money locally? Maybe he is already trying to influence people in Slo with his generous donation, so he can get a project through easier up there.


Mission Prep is not in need of his money, maybe he should donate it to a local food bank. That would be a TRUE act of kindness, and not just greasing someone’s palm.


0

I am unclear as to how Mr. Tompkins can say that his final project will be Courtland but I also heard him announce the future donation to ? A private High School in SLO? How does that jive?

Very true that a donation kept within the city would appear more genuine. As I heard it, his offer seemed more of a desperate attempt at self promotion than a heartfelt gift.

What a slap down to Arroyo Grande—let me build a project in your town but make a large donation somewhere else. Why didn’t he just say you’d be foolish not to take me up on my offer while he was at it?

What’s not to love?

You can only pee in the pool so many times before you get kicked out.


0

I am very pleased to read of the outcome of last night’s meeting. Mr. Mack is the most qualified on the Planning Commission, and knows to ask all the right questions. I feel he is an attribute to the PC.


Talk about transparency…I can remember Ms. Barneich’s first appointment was to the planning commission. She was appointed by Chuck Fellows, then council member. What was it not disclosed that Ms. Barneich is Mr. Fellow’s DAUGHTER!


I feel that was a conflict of interest, at least not to disclose it to the public. Maybe it did not violate any governmental laws, but Ms. Barneich wanted to oust Mr. Mack based on what it “looked like”.


So, let’s just try to be honest and fair, and we can get our community back on track.


0

Can you say HYPOCRITE? B A R N E I C H


Why was it the PRINCESS could not vote her convictions?


0

So HARMON, BARNEICH, & GUTHRIE decided their allegiance to being reelected was stronger than their allegiance to Mr. Tompkins.


Shocker!


0

Barneich and Guthrie reelected? not a chance, I hope.


0

Sorry wouldn’t it be Barneich’s first election? Appointments are not elections wins to me.


0

Umm, cuz a follower is not a leader?


0

What I found most interesting was Ms. Barniech walking in, putting down her purse and then looking right at Mr. Tompkins and smiling. Ms. Harmon also gave the developer a wink and a thumbs up just prior to the start of the meeting.


Ms. Barniech talked so strongly about why she wanted Mr. Mack removed, but she is so weak she would not hold her ground when Ms Harmon changed her mind. She is a very weak council member in her voting and her understanding of issues.


Ms Harmon wants to talk transparency, but she went after Mr. Mack prior to the FPPC even reading the complaint.And when this first came up she stated she had seen the complaint, hmm makes you wonder who’s side she was on all along.


Guthrie went from the FCCP complaint to another subject all together. The agenda read they were there because of the FPPC complaint Mr. Tompkins filed. He went after the quit deed Mr. Mack did, that was not what they were there for.


It is sad to see council members drag someone through the mud like 3 of them did last night. I don’t know why any of them changed their minds, but it was asked at the beginning of the meeting to pull 12a the agenda item. None of them choose to do that.


So they got to drag Mr. Mack and the public through a very tough night, only to change their minds, tuck tail and run.


Ms. Harmon is this your “new perspective” that you ran your campaign under? You and Tony Ferrera seem to have a lot in common. In fact it looks like you were a plant for him. We have always known Ms. Barniech is a Ferrera Fan, and Guthrie too.


0

The spectacle of the November 10th meeting can be used for years to come for many political lessons.


1. Never act on a claim, act on a determination.


2. Volunteers should be treated as well as employees or better – not worse!


3. No matter what you say, no one likes it personal and name calling at a public meeting. Those ugly words spewed by Ray, Thompkins, and Guthrie were recorded and will be remembered.


4. Politicians will always vote in their own self interest to keep their jobs.


Hill did an admirable job running a meeting stuffed with uncomfortableness.


0

Going into Tuesday’s meeting I’d have bet NKT believed he had the majority of the council right where he wanted them. KB and Guthrie were a sure deal without a doubt. Harmon must have thrown him for a loop with her last minute (or was it?) decision to follow the FPPC and stop the madness.

Harmon knew of the FPPC decision PRIOR to the hour long kangaroo court, so why not jump on Mayor Hill’s motion, Councilman Brown’s second and be done with it early on if that was her intent all along? Why would Harmon subject a volunteer to that kind of treatment just to cut him loose? Was her intent to embarrass Mr Mack, did she believe NKT was going to be successful in his attempts to get a FPPC investigation, or is there some other reason? Why?


0

Perhaps she wanted to say: Don’t you dare run for City Council.

Watch this: We will make sure of it!


0

While I don’t know John Mack on a personal basis, I had an opportunity to work with him during the very preliminary design stages of a project, which as it turns out was never built. I found him to be very pleasant, respectful, and a good listener even though we didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye on certain aspects of the project.


I have the upmost respect for him and should he decide to run for public office, he has my vote and the use of my front yard for a sign.


Good luck John!


0

I watched this meeting on TV and frankly, I think the outcome was fair.


I’ve watched Mack in action, and he is one of the best current planning commissioners we have. I didn’t want him removed. But, I also think he was very obviously circumventing the rules when he quit claimed his home. This should have been brought to the public’s attention (as it was), and the black mark on Mack’s record should be the extent of his punishment.


I think Harmon was right with her comments on transparency working both ways, although she carried on a bit much about it. I also thought Tim Brown was correct in his statements, but he got a little too passionate about such a minor thing. Hill’s statement about the punishment for paid officials being merely a fine and not removal from their position really put the silliness of this whole affair in perspective, and I think that is why the others voted to not remove Mack.


0

TIME out!

Shut it down.


Guthrie and Barneich vote to retain Mack but provide no reason for their vote when it was directly opposite their comments.


What the hell!


0

If Mack runs for City Council, he would have my vote.


As a side note, if someone more “techy” than I was out there, our 93420 politicians have enough scandal and “juicy” material to have a modern day version of a 1am “Fishmasters” type show. Just sayin’. I would totally watch!!


0

BACK MACK !!!


0

nothing wrong with retaining one’s seat


0

Are you speaking of Guthrie and Barneich “retaining their seat” by voting with the majority even if it was not what they wanted, but alas, in their political best interest?


0

That depends on who’s sitting in it.


0
1 2