Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-22 CRA . . . REL:adg 6/7/83 RESOLUTION NO. 83-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING THE CLAIM OF -KATIE'S CHILDREN'S BOUTIQUE" FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS WHEREAS, a claim for relocation assistance payments in the amount of $35,431.00 was filed with the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana (the -Agency-) on or about August 3,1982, in the name of -Katie's Children's Boutique¡- and WHEREAS, said claim was denied by the Community Development Director of the City of Santa Ana on behalf of this Agency on or about September 1, 1982¡ and WHEREAS, -Katie's Children's Boutique- appealed to this Agency from said denial¡ and WHEREAS, prior to being heard by this Agency, said claim was submitted to the Community Redevelopment Commission for review and recommendation¡ and WHEREAS, based upon its review of the claim, the Community Redevelopment Commission, at its meeting of April 19, 1983, recommended its denial¡ and WHEREAS, this Agency, at its meeting of May 17, 1983, reviewed the said claim and all written materials pertaining thereto, and gave hearing to the oral arguments and evidence of the claimant and Agency staff¡ and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said review and hearing, on the basis of all the evidence, written and oral, presented to it, this Agency has determined to deny said claim, and does now desire to set forth such determination in writing in accordance with section 42.705(e) of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations¡ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above said claim of -Katie's Children Boutique- for relocation assistance payments is denied in its entirety. ;+-11 6A RESOLUTION NO. 83-22 PAGE TWO . 2. The factual and legal basis upon which said denial is based is as follows: a. The factual background to the relocation upon which said claim is based is truly and accurately represented in the remarks of the Community Development Director to the Community Redevelopment Commission as reported in the minutes of the April 19, 1983 meeting of said commission, incorporated herein by reference. . b. "Katie's Children's Boutique" lacks standing within the intent of governing federal relocation assistance regulations to file a claim for relocation assistance payments as a tenant separate and apart from Green's Furniture Store, Inc. (1) "Katie's Children's Boutique" is a business name identifying a retail clothing business operation conducted primarily by Mrs. William Greenberg with the assistance of her husband, Mr. William Greenberg. "Green's Furniture Store, Inc." is an incorporated retail furniture business owned, operated, and controlled by Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg. Both the furniture business and the clothing business were located on premises leased in the name of "Green's Furniture Store, Inc." from Mr. and Mrs. Harry Greenberg, the parents of Mr. William Greenberg at the time of the relocation upon which the claim is based. The clothing business known as "Katie's Children's Boutique," even if legally distinct from "Green's Furniture Store, Inc.," possessed no interest of its own in the property in which it was located. Rather, Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg simply decided to use part of the space which they leased in the name of "Green's Furniture Store, Inc." for the clothing retail portion of their family business. They did not enter into any sublease or rental arrangement of any type between "Green's Furniture Store, Inc." and "Katie's Children's Boutique." In such circumstances, it would be completely unrealistic to consider "Katie's Children's Boutique" as a separate and distinct tenant within the purpose and intent of the governing federal relocation assistance regulations. . (2) In the time preceding and during the rehabilitation work on the Grand Central Building, leading up to and including the letter agreement of February 18, 1981, Mr. William Greenberg represented himself to Agency staff as speaking on behalf of both himself and his wife with respect to both the furniture business and the clothing It-I? 6A RESOLUTION NO. 83-22 PAGE THREE . business. Agency staff acted reasonably in assuming Mr. William Greenberg had such authority. At the time it was negotiated, the letter agreement of February 18,1981, was understood by Agency staff and Mr. William Greenberg, and presumably by Mrs. William Greenberg, to extend to all business operations conducted by Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg in that portion of the Grand Central Building leased by Green's Furniture Store, Inc. That letter agreement reflected Mr. William Greenberg's own estimate of the expenses he and his wife would incur, either directly or through their corporation, for such relocation of their businesses, or portions thereof, as was necessitated by the rehabilitation of the Grand Central Building. It was accepted by Agency staff, in lieu of an estimate of such expenses by an independent source, in order to accommodate Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg in their desire to proceed quickly with a staggered self-move out of the Grand Central Building to minimize adverse impacts on their business operations. The fact that the letter agreement is addressed to "Green Furniture" merely reflects the status of "Green's Furniture Store, Inc." as the tenant of record on the premises and does not reflect any intention or understanding by the parties that the clothing business was excluded from its scope and to be treated separately. From the time of the letter agreement of February 18,1981, to the filing of the claim for "Katie's Children's Boutique" on August 3, 1982, neither Mr. William Greenberg nor his wife ever made any representation or inquiry to Agency staff on the issue of whether "Katie's Children's Boutique" should be entitled to relocation assistance payments apart from, or in addition to, those made to Mr. William Greenberg pursuant to the letter agreement, even though they were fully aware that Agency staff had determined that their business operations in the Grand Central Building were eligible for relocation assistance payments, as evidenced by the letter agreement itself. Such conduct on the part of Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg precludes them from now asserting a separate and independent status for "Katie's Children's Boutique" as a tenant-claimant under federal relocation assistance regulations. . . c. Even if it were assumed that a valid separate status exists for "Katie's Children's Boutique" as a tenant- claimant, and assumed, further, that the letter agreement of February 18,1981, pertained solely to the furniture business operated by Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg, the claim of "Katie's Children's Boutique" must still be denied on the alternative basis of insufficient substantiation of the items and amounts claimed as relocation costs and ~~,J., 0 6A RESOLUTION NO. 83-22 PAGE FOUR . expenses. The declarations of William Greenberg and Sonia Greenberg are not persuasive of the truth of the allegations therein contained, both because they are inherently self- serving statements, and because they failed to provide any detailed explanation of the items for which claims are made, or the necessity of incurring costs and expenses with respect thereto, or the amounts of the costs and expenses alleged. Apart from two receipts for electrical work (which are related to the claimant solely by a general assertion in the declaration of William Greenberg), the amounts claimed are unsupported by any independent documentation in the nature of bids, estimates, appraisals, receipts, or statements of disinterested third parties. While such document ion is not ordinarily required or available for moving expenses in the case of a self-move, the Agency would have been entitled to obtain independent bids or estimates of moving expenses in lieu of such documentation (or an agreed-upon estimate such as the February 18 letter agreement) on which to base a determination of proper relocation assistance payments. In this case, however, this Agency was precluded from doing so by reason of Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg's failure (apart from the discussions leading up to the February 18,1981 letter agreement) to consult with Agency staff on the relocation of WKatie's Children's Boutique.w As noted previously, neither Mr. William Greenberg nor Mrs. William Greenberg ever represented to the Agency that they were incurring moving expenses with respect to their clothing business that were not addressed or anticipated in the letter agreement until this claim was filed, long after the move took place. Agency staff were thereby deprived of the opportunity to evaluate (or reevaluate) the actuality and reasonableness of the moving expenses and related expenses of the clothing business on the basis of either independently-derived or agreed-upon estimates. If Mr. and Mrs. William Greenberg did in fact incur moving and related expenses other than those addressed in the letter agreement, they acted unreasonably in failing to communicate with Agency staff in a timely manner. Their present inability to provide any meaningful substantiation for the amounts they now claim is primarily their own responsibility. . . d. As a separate and independent basis for denial of that portion of the said claim pertaining to wLoss of Personal Property,W the claimant failed to establish its eligibility for payment for any actual loss of any items of tangible personal property incurred as a result of the claimant's move. The claimant made no good faith effort to sell such property, nor did it transfer ownership of such /J -.J./ 6A RESOLUTION NO. 83-22 PAGE FIVE . property to the Agency as required by 24 CFR SS 42.307 and 42.309. e. As a separate and independent basis for the denial of that portion of the said claim pertaining to "Loss due to Damage," the governing federal relocation assistance guidelines do not allow payment of such costs. Rather it was the responsibility of the claimant to protect itself from such costs through appropriate insurance. f. As a separate and independent basis for the denial of that portion of the said claim pertaining to "storage costs," no evidence, description, or explanation of storage exists by which the Agency could determine that any storage of claimant's personal property was necessary. . 3. Pursuant to 24 CFR S 42.707, the claimant has the right to appeal this determination to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The applicable HUD office is located at the following address: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Los Angeles Area Office, Region IX, 2500 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057. ADOPTED this by the following vote: 21st day of June ,1983 AYES: MEMBERS: NOES: MEMBERS: ABSENT: members: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Johnson, McGuigan, Luxembourger, Young None None ~~ <~.",;¡¡ Cha rman .",~~ . Executive Director/ Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: !!:.o~- ~ ¡::¡ - ~ .l.. 6A