Cynthia Brock fights neighbor's attempt to add 2nd story for ailing family member
More true stories like this at Goleta Homeowners' Rights Association.
3/16/02
To: City of Goleta: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
County of Santa Barbara: Zoning Administrator and relevant Zoning staff
From: Michael E. Mills, Goleta resident and homeowner
Re: A potential conflict of interest in the review of a home improvement application
I am writing to alert you about a potential conflict of interest, and to express some concerns about fairness that I have, regarding the review of my applications for a second story addition to my home (Zoning Administrator Case #: 01CDH-00000-00050).
My home is situated directly behind the residence of a member of the Goleta City Council, Ms. Cynthia Brock. She opposes the proposed addition and apparently has taken active steps to block it. Thus she clearly has a personal interest in my applications to add a second story to my home. My concern is that her position as a Council member may result in a conflict of interest, and may result in a less than impartial and fair review of my permit applications.
I informed Ms. Brock of my plans for this addition last Fall, when she stopped by my house to drop off some literature to promote her election to the City Council. She expressed no objection to it then, and I have heard no objection from her since until a little over a week ago.
It came to my attention recently that she was taking active steps to explore ways to block approval of my applications for a second story addition. In particular, in telephone conversations with County zoning staff working on my application, I have learned that Ms. Brock recently met with them to discuss policies or regulations that might thwart the approval of my application.
In addition, in a recent personal meeting with Ms. Brock, she indicated to me that she plans to actively oppose my application, and that she will appeal any decisions in my favor -- including initiating appeals to the Coastal Commission -- to delay the project for as long as possible. She suggested that, during these delays and appeals, the City of Goleta might enact regulations that could adversely affect my applications.
On March 8th, one business day before my application was scheduled to be heard at the Santa Barbara County Zoning Administrator meeting, I was informed by the County that the City of Goleta had requested that my application be dropped from the meeting agenda for the next business day (and it was). I do not know if Ms. Brock had any involvement in this request made by the City of Goleta. However, since the Goleta City Manager, Mr. Ed Wollenberg, told me in a telephone conversation that he did not make this request, and that he had no knowledge of it, I suspect that it is likely Ms. Brock had some involvement in initiating this request to the County, on behalf of the City of Goleta, to drop my application from the date of its scheduled hearing, and thus postponing it to a later date.
I would like to learn why my agenda item was postponed, whether that request was particularly unusual or unique, whether Ms. Brock had any involvement in the initiation of this request, and if so, if such actions were counter to ethical standards or policies.
These actions by Council Member Brock appear to me to likely involve an unethical conflict of interest. I have written a letter to Ms. Brock requesting that she recuse herself from any future official involvement, lobbying or votes on this matter (a copy my letter to Ms. Brock is attached). I have also made this request directly to her verbally during a personal meeting that we had in my home on March 10th.
Also, while I have no objection to Ms. Brock “playing by the rules” as a private citizen, I am concerned that, by delaying my project with lengthy appeals, Ms. Brock may eventually have some direct or indirect involvement in lobbying for and/or enacting City policies that, while perhaps not directed specifically at my proposed addition, may ultimately affect it.
When Ms. Brock campaigned on a policy of slow growth, I understood that she opposed rapid development of new communities on pristine land. But I was unaware that she might oppose a second story addition in an existing community that already has a mix of first and second story houses, including houses to which second stories have been added. The Zoning Administrator's Staff Report (Case #: 01CDH-00000-00050) states that my proposed addition "is compatible with the surrounding one and two story single family dwellings... (and it is) compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood." (page A-2) To my knowledge, this is the first time that Ms. Brock has actively opposed any second story addition. There is a home with a second story addition, rather similar to my proposed addition, almost directly across the street from her residence.
As I noted in my letter to Ms. Brock, it would be an inauspicious start for the new Goleta city governance if applicants for second story additions were all given fair and equal treatment – all except for those applicants who happen to live behind a City political officer. It would also be unfortunate if such conflicts of interest were a motive to lobby to change City policies that were then applied retroactively to my applications.
I respectfully request that the persons and/or agencies to which this letter is addressed, and/or any other appropriate County and City officials or staff, review this matter to make their own determination regarding whether Council Member Brock indeed has a conflict of interest with respect to my application. If that determination is made, I would also ask that policies are adopted, or existing policies are applied, to help to insure that future conflicts of interest in this matter are avoided.
An effective way to avoid such situations would be the adoption of a general City policy that specifies that in cases in which there is any question about a potential conflict of interest by a City official, any new City zoning or building regulations are not to be applied retroactively to home addition projects that were “in the pipeline" with the County at the time the City was incorporated. To avoid unfairness, I hope that the City of Goleta will consider adopting such a policy for homeowners (who have likely already invested thousands of dollars in architectural, engineering and County zoning fees) who had applications for home improvements already before the County.
I appreciate your consideration and review my concerns. Please keep me informed of the City and/or County determination regarding whether there exists a conflict of interest in this matter, and if so, what steps will be taken to help to insure that my applications for a second story addition to my home is given a fair and impartial review.
I would be happy to meet with you personally to discuss any of these issues.
Note: There was no reply to this letter by any of the individuals or agencies to which it was addressed. The Zoning Administrator meeting was postponed about 6 times. Since the City of Goleta had incorporated after the application was originally submitted to the County, eventually the application was forwarded to the City of Goleta (although many other applications were not transferred). As prophesied by the letter, the rules regarding home additions in Goleta did indeed significantly change. The homeowner gave up and changed his architectural drawings to a single room addition addition in the backyard. The project was eventually approved after 3.5 years of "processing" and delays.