Fingerprints, Fingerprints…

No two are alike…

Last Wednesday the City of Fullerton Planning Department and its Director – a guy named Matt Foulkes – set an item before the Planning Commission. It was a CUP amendment that would help The Florentine Mob bring their shaky agglomeration of scofflaws businesses into compliance with an ever-weakening system of controls for out-of-control bar owners in Downtown Fullerton.

Poor Joe. Read. Weep.

But Lo and Behold, Florentine had no okie-dokie from the property owner, Mario Marovic, to pursue said amendment as is required by Fullerton’s own code. Not much of a quandry, right? Cut and dried, right? Crystal clear?: Come back when you gt Marovic’s signature on our form.

And yet for some reason our esteemed and well-compensated staff decided that the issue wasn’t clear at all; that the very notion of property ownership was open to interpretation, and that a completely irrelevant legal case dredged up by Floretine’s personal consigliere was applicable and definitive; and, that an application form obviously doctored by Florentine was just fine and dandy.

Hmm. The plot thickens with a fraudulent document!

Now, how do you get from Point A to Point B? Well this is Fullerton, more especially Downtown Fullerton, where lawless saloon owners have been ignoring the law for years with the obvious connivance of staff and city councilpersons and city attorney.

The very history of the Florentine’s operation is a testament to the way some people in this town not only get special treatment, they get a free pass to ignore the law. Building in a public right-of-way without an encroachment permit? Check. Illegal night club? Check. Operating in in violation of conditional use permit conditions? Check.

What I have heard from pretty reliable sources is that the lowest-level planner, Christine Hernandez, the poor sap whose name appears on the staff report to the Commission, was directed to process the application by her boss, Matt Foulkes; and that Foulkes in turn, was directed by his boss, City Manager Ken Domer to make sure this was approved. At this point it doesn’t take a rocket engineer to figure out that there is only one force in Fullerton irresistible enough to try to push through an illegal land use application and to make allegedly professional staff turn a blind eye to a forged document that violated their own law. Do I have to spell it out? Okay: Jennifer Fitzgerald, our lobbyist-mayor, that’s who.

Yes, that is the answer!

Nobody has been propping up reckless bar owners more than Fitzgerald, ranging from massive taxpayer subsidies for cops and clean-ups, ignoring nuisance violations, and even going so far as to pimp an utterly ridiculous district map concocted by the gin joints to dilute council control over their week-end war zone. Whenever a bar owner steps on his weenie or needs a favor, Fitzgerald throws herself into breech to help a pal out.

Play it again, Ken…

If I’m wrong Fitzgerald will get an apology. But I’m very confident I’m not wrong. And this time the truth may come out, even though this is Fullerton. Mr. Marovic’s lawyer is bound to demand all communications on this matter between staff and councilmembers, and godspeed, to that, say I.

Let’s find out whose fingerprints are on the latest Fullerton municipal humiliation.

Curt Pringle & Associates Downtown Fullerton Dunn & Domer Fullerton City Council Gin Flurry I Aint a Swallerin That Jennifer Fitzgerald Something Wicked This Way Comes The Culture of Corruption

21 thoughts on “Fingerprints, Fingerprints…

  1. laws are meant to be bent as they ever evolve, What makes a law valid is if its enforceable. (Such as the affordable health care penalty.) Oops you didn’t follow the rules..Some times rules are there for no other reason to give excuse for enforcement if needed. Also sometimes it easier to build a retaining wall and then get the permit rather than getting the permit first and finding its going to be nearly impossible to cut thru the red tape. The planning commission chose to hear this matter for this reason to find the logic behind this but no logic would present itself.. There appears to be another plot playing out behind the drama which has not been fully disclosed. I think it has sompthing to do with that small strip of sidewalk alongside the dark tinted windows in the heart of the downtown is like a black eye on the city.

      1. “The very history of the Florentine’s operation is a testament to the way some people in this town not only get special treatment, they get a free pass to ignore the law. Building in a public right-of-way without an encroachment permit?” …in plain English, it is and there is. Please contribute something useful?

  2. I’m curious. I finally got around to watching/listening to the planning meeting today. What changed in that all of the downtown bars/restaurants suddenly need to amend their CUPs this year? Is their a grace period? A new city ordinance?

    Also….reading the existing CUP for Florentine’s businesses indicate those tinted windows are illegal, as he is limited to 15% tint, and that tint on 100 North/Tribune is WAY darker.

  3. It’s going to be real hard to bury this attempt to swindle Marovic. All the city staff knows from the idiot Domer on down. And everybody in Jones & Mayer knows too.

    Domer has his thingy caught in a wringer.

  4. I rent a small house near downtown Fullerton. Can I apply for a conditional use permit to convert it into a sober living home without my landlords approval? I have a lease. So, according to the City Of Fullerton that means I am the property owner.

    1. Yes, you may. But you do need permission from Jennifer FitzPringle. It doesn’t have to be in writing. A phone call will suffice.

    2. Buying A long term commercial lease which existed before the property was purchased is more like an investment in a business not a building… to try to control that business with maneuvers is questionable ethical not sound because they existed as a package deal. The operator of that business assumes more of an ownership role which would play out in court as a partnership. Florentine was just opporating his right to run his business without unessisary hindrance.

        1. did school do something good for you? You can’t … or unwilling to explain a simple point you made.technicaly your right if …if that you feel better… Apathy can be seen everywhere even among the educated. Fullerton is a city of education and educated..but look what happening..no need to comment unless you can get can get see beyond your own ego. The town does not belong to wealthy or the poor, the sympathetic & pathetic also live here and you seemed to miss the most important points ..the humanity between the lines…

  5. That is not the case. Florentine has an existing CUP. No one is keeping him from operating within the confines of that existing CUP. There is no “partnership”. Property owner dictates any and all CUP authorizations. Like it or not, CUP’s run with the land. As a matter of fact, you can have a CUP application/approval without even having a tenant. Fullerton will be hard pressed to convince all property owners and the court system that EVERY other city in the country has been doing it wrong for all these years and now Florentine’s attorney found a solution to the problem that never existed.

    1. It is the responsibility of the business owner, not the building owner, to ensure the business’ CUP conforms to the business and is kept updated. Florentine undertook unnecessary risk by not keeping his CUP updated with his ever-evolving businesses while he had a more cooperative landlord, and now he’s paying the price. The city should also be more involved in making sure that businesses conform to their CUPs. Little things in the CUP like window tint may seem petty but when unenforced for so long it turns into a slippery slope where the business feels like they can take advantage of inattention.

      As a landlord, as another pointed out, I view my relationship with my tenants as a partnership, and I will do everything I can to ensure my tenants’ businesses are successful. As such, I would rubberstamp any reasonable CUPs tenants put in front of me, but it’s their responsibility to communicate with me and get the proper CUP application to me.

      1. It’s not a slippery slope.

        If you had a tenant who wasn’t meeting the existing requirements for fire protection in their current CUP, how would you react?

  6. Thanks for adding the forged document. That’s a pretty bold attempt by JoFlo to sidestep the law. Of course he had lots of accomplices in City hall. And in the friendly offices of Jones and mayer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.