CULVER CITY DENIED MY NEIGHBORHOOD'S APPEAL OF A MUNICIPAL CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE
DECISION TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THREE TIMES. YOUR RIGHTS MIGHT BE NEXT.

THE TRUE STORY: STARTS HERE-
Decision of March 25th 1999 - MCAC allows Culver Ready for Finish Furniture to use paint sprayers
and air guns on their parking lot seven days a week. No one informed my wife and I that we
could appeal the decision. On the day of the hearing, March 25, 1999 I wrote letters to
Carol DeLay (head of Planning), Mark winnogrond(CAO), Carol Schwab (City Attorney), and all
Council members. The letters were hand delivered to City Hall. Copy of letter marked received by
Planning - I have more letters also showing reviewed by city less than
10 days from MCAC decision.
_______________________________________________________________________________

This letter above was received with in 10 days of the March 25th 1999. No One informed us that
we had right to appeal, I just wrote the letters to voice my disagreement with the decision.
________________________________________________________________________________________
On July,22 1999 my wife and I met with City Officials and we were advised to send a request letter to
City Council asking for our letters of March 25th 1999 to stand
as request for appeal request. We never heard back from the Council. Letter below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Click link below and page will load then the audio will just start playing,
you may want to be ready to adjust the volume on your computer)
Again in the MCAC hearing of 2-08-2000 Listen to Audio from hearing.
Deputy City Attorney states there is no stated time in the City code
for an appeal to be requested. She informs the CAO, Mark Winnogrond that she
will notify the parties of their appeal rights. Not my wife and I or anyone of the
37 people who signed a petition to take away the wood shop and
manufacturing from behind Culver Ready For Finish Furniture were
notified as stated in a public hearing by the Deputy City Attorney.
Our rights were not addressed, in the final decision written on February 24, 2000.
See on the last page of the decision (below) only mentioned the appellants rights
for the appellant. We were not the appellant. The appellant is the business owner who's
manufacturing activities were deemed a public nuisance in the written decision.
No information was given for us of time limit or ability to appeal to the City Council contrary to
what we were stated by the City Attorney staff in a public hearing.

Here is what we got - Appellant can appeal - we aren't mentioned. I Had to make a
request for this document, public document requests take usually 10 days to process.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is a copy of a public document request that verifies that the City Attorney
did not contact me about any appeal rights as we were told in the hearing.

Letter below sent to City April 3, 2009 Requesting Appeal

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
City Reply  -  Click to download Document Below

APPEAL DENIED AGAIN BY CURRENT COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL. WHILE MR. MALSIN WAS MAYOR THE COUNCIL WENT BEHID CLOSED DOORS
AND DECIDED TO NOT AUDIT THE BUSINESS AFTER I HAD PRESENTED CREDITABLE EVIDENCE
OF MISCONDUCT BY THE BUSINESS. FURTHER THE CITY MADE A PUBLIC STATEMENT
IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING (BELOW)

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DATE STATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS LAST DATE TO
APPEAL IS ONE DAY BEFORE THE WRITTEN DECISION WAS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE TO VIEW.
WHO WOULD BE EXPECTED TO APPEAL A DECISION BEFORE IT WAS EVEN WRITTEN?
NEXT DOCUMENT (BELOW) IS A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE BUSINESS OWNER STATING
HE HAD 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER TO APPEAL. THIS LETTER WRITTEN
FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER CITY SAYS NO APPEAL WAS ALLOWED.

THIS LETTER BELOW WAS SENT TO THE CITY ASKING FOR AN APEAL AND THE CITY GRANTED
IT WHILE THE CITY SAYS OUR LAST DATE TO APPEAL HAD PAST. THE BUSINESS DROPPED THEIR APPEAL
AFTER MY SUBMISSION TO THE CITY OF OUR ISSUES. WE NEVER WERE ALLOWED TO APPEAL.

THE CITY DID ALLOW THE BUSINESS OWNER TO APPEAL BUT AFTER WE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY
THE BUSINESS OWNER DROPPED HIS APPEAL AND WE COULD NOT GO FURTHER.

THE STATEMENT BY THE CITY STATED THAT THE EXPIREATION DATE FOR APPEAL WAS FEBRUARY 23, 2000.
THE ABOVE LETTER TO THE BUSINESS OWNERS LAWYER WAS DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2000
GIVING THEM 10 DAYS TO APPEAL. MY NEIGHBORHOOD'S TIME TO APPEAL WAS DIFFERENT THAT THE OTHRE SIDE.
THIS IS HOW CULVER CITY ADMINISTRATION, CITY ATTORNEY & CITH ATTORNEY OFFICE WORKS!

EVEN WITH INCONSISTANT AND CONFLICTNG STATEMENTS BY CITY OFFICIALS AND ALLIGATIONS OF NEW
VIOLATIONS BY CRFFF THE CURRENT COUNCIL DENIED OUR REQUEST FOR
THIS ISSUE TO BE HEARD AGAIN BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL CODE APPEALS COMMITTE OR IN PUBLIC BEFOR THE
CITY COUNCIL.

FURTHER IN A COUNCIL MEETING, THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED OUR APPEAL
BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WROTE AN UNTRUE AND
MISLEADING MEMO AND THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO DENY OUR RIGHTS AGAIN.
______________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer