WE WANT OUR SIDEWALK BACK!

In Fullerton City Hall, nothing is forgotten quite so quickly as the past, particularly if that past includes malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence or prevarication.

That’s why FFFF has made it our mission to remind folks about such egregious rip-offs as the Saga of the Florentine Sidewalk, in which a sleazy restaurant put a room addition on a public sidewalk and got away with it.

Here’s the now relevant part: The disgraced Florentine & Co. quit Fullerton last year, and the building’s owner, Mario Marovic is in the process of remodeling the exterior and interior of the building even though he doesn’t yet have the proposed CUP – so he must be pretty confident he’s going to get it. The matter comes to the Planning Commission tonight.

The staff report, as usual, is full of irrelevant crap, and completely ignores the the theft of the sidewalk, a land grab that was eventually made legal by a revised lease – with Florentine. The report also shares Marovic’s plan for the corner space at Harbor and Commonwealth, keeping the permanent structure built by Florentine!

The theft continues…

Now that’s not very good, is it.

I doubt if anybody on the Planning Commission remembers the sordid history of this building, and you can be sure that no one on staff remembers or cares to remind them. But now is the time to get this sidewalk back!

34 Replies to “WE WANT OUR SIDEWALK BACK!”

  1. I think you are right. Very few people even remember this anymore. There is no institutional memory – just institutional lethargy.

  2. Why is this guy doing work before he has a CUP? That seems assbackwards – unless he figures three votes are in the bag.

    1. Because he already paid the tribute to the city trolls necessary to get the CUP. That plus the unlimited free drinks, food and prostitutes he promised to a few city council members. That’s how “business” get done in Fullerton.

    2. He is manipulative it is easy to see by moving forward with remodel of the boozer bar with the “Better to ask for forgiveness than permission”, a typical snake in the grass move.

  3. The City owns the abandoned improvements and:

    1) removes the add-on and replaces the sidewalk, or;
    2) the City charges Marovic the going sf rental rate that Marovic charges his tenants.

    Easy peasy.

  4. Get rid of the sidewalk altogether and route all pedestrians and hobos right through the booze-o-ram experience..

  5. Link to the staff report here: https://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=1499738&page=1&cr=1

    Graphics and story don’t tell of all the concerning things.

    There’s this: *****The business owner requests to include the outdoor dining area as an
    option to customers. The patios are proposed at the eastern side of the structure, within the
    public alley/pedestrian access, with each restaurant having its own dedicated patio area. The
    two outdoor dining areas include removable furniture, decorative planter boxes, new lighting,
    and decorative railings. The proposed square footage of the proposed patio areas are 172
    square feet ( Mickey’s Irish Pub) and 332 square feet ( High Horse Saloon). The final
    configuration of alley improvements to accommodate the two outdoor dining areas will require
    review and approval of an Encroachment Agreement by Public Works.*****

    And this: *****The operating hours for both restaurants are proposed as follows:
    Mickey’s Irish Pub Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
    Saturday and Sunday 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
    High Horse Saloon Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
    Saturday and Sunday 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
    The hours of Live Entertainment (DJ) for both businesses are proposed as follows:
    Mickey’s Irish Pub Monday through Sunday 4:00 p.m. – 1:30 a.m.
    High Horse Saloon Friday and Saturday 4:00 p.m. – 1:30 a.m.*****

  6. The outcome of tonight’s Planning Commission meeting was a 5-0 vote in favor of the CUP, deferring to the PD regarding hours. Several on the planning commission expressed concern over the “bump out” that Florentine did, and they briefly considered tying approval of the outdoor dining to removal of the bump out, but instead are having staff make a recommendation to the City Council to reconsider what to do on the bump out. Apparently there was an agreement with the city in 2017 leasing the bump out to the new owner, but no dollar amounts were mentioned. The City Council has the power to mandate removal of the bump out, the Planning Commission has no legal authority in that regard.

    1. That last statement is simply not true. If the City Attorney told them that he was lying. The Planning Commission has discretionary authority to link any reasonable condition it wants to an application. They obviously pussied out, which is so typical.

      1. Correct.

        Mitigating the impact of lines waiting to get in, for example.

        Reason 5692 to fire Jones.

    2. “Apparently there was an agreement with the city in 2017 leasing the bump out to the new owner, but no dollar amounts were mentioned.”

      That’s not true. The lease was with Florentine and when he left the property reverts to the City. The City must decide whether to restore the sidewalk or charge the building owner rent for the additional space.

      THE END

            1. A lease between the City and who? The Florentines got that lease back in 2005 and kept it. There may have been an amendment for terms in 2017 but it sure wasn’t with the property owner. In fact this Mario marovic guy may not even have owned the building yet.

              Can’t you bend it around your head that maybe staff LIED about Marovic having a lease and paying rent. Well, don’t worry. The truth will come out and then we can all watch as the City Council makes more lies and incompetence go away.

              1. https://fullerton.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

                Spend 90 minutes and watch the meeting. It was interesting to me. Plenty of discussion, maybe 15-20% of the meeting, was spent on the “bump out”, including comments by Marovic as well as the City Attorney. In hindsight, I’m sorry I didn’t note timestamps to direct people to the most relevant parts. If I recall correctly, the lease of the bump out terminated when Florentine lost his lease, and a new lease had to be signed with Marovic. In the meeting, Marovic estimated he has owned the building for approximately 4 years.

                1. The lease (amendment) is from the summer of ’17 – signed by Joe Florentine. Staff lied. Florentine was there until last summer when he defaulted on this agreement with the City. I wonder if staff will create a forged document to show a current lease with this marovic guy. Both they and the City Attorney are fine with forged public documents.

                2. You sound like a pal of Mario.

                  If so, please ask him to see this alleged lease for the “bump out” with the City. I’ll give you a thousand bucks if you can produce it. FFFF can broker the deal.

                3. Sipowicz, why don’t you just watch the damned video than rely on my recollection? FWIW, I think the bump out should be demolished and returned to a sidewalk. Also…wouldn’t that lease be subject to disclosure through a public records request? You want it? Then get it. I was very surprised to learn the city signed a new lease for the bump out….probably done with the old (fired) City Manager.

                4. I did watch the video, Chief. All of it. You seem addicted to the idea that the dumbass woman in charge and the third rate lawyer in a third rate law firm MUST be telling the truth.

                  I’m sure you were “surprised” to hear of the existence of an impossible document.

                  Don’t get testy. Just ask Mario to show it to you. It’s a phone call and now I’m sure you have his number.

                5. Old Timer (a good name, you seem like you really are a cranky old man, “Chief”, “Pal”, or whatever old man-ism you like to go by), thanks for confirming that my summary of the meeting was accurate. People on this site are a trip. Someone who agrees the “bump out” should be removed accurately summarizes what took place in the meeting, reports it here to increase awareness, and gets attacked for it. You eat your own.

                6. Mouse your “summary” was accurate only in so far as you swallowed a lie by your friends at City Hall and passed it along as truth. Glad you think the pop-out ought to go. I want accountability for all the lies and deceit perpetrated by staff and the City Attorney over the years about this issue.

      1. Just don’t care about this issue. Why has this blog silent on what matters. Using ARPA funds to help the public like it was intended. Not just for roads. Like why majority of council voted against updating the lighting system that is a safety issue and has been for years. The 1.5 million they diverted to roads will replace, what, a mile.

        1. Just because you were not here, don’t recall or don’t care is not valid reason to “fugettaboutit”. Move along lil minion. This back room Fullerton negotiations are brought to light… AGAIN.

          This blog should never stop talking about it until the property has been restored to the taxxpaying residents who own it.

          Touch grass.

  7. peering inside through a small opening it appears the bump out has been walled off to the original wall location. the extra area appears as closet space.

    1. You have obviously never been in there. And what does it matter how small? If I stole your Honda Civic would it be less of a crime than stealing Jan Flores caddy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.