My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0820_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0820_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:54:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Bennett <br />October 3,2006 <br />Page 3 <br />application. We have added language to Section 907.05 which provides that a property owner <br />who is currently renting a properiy covered by Section 907 has 60 days to file an application <br />for registration following the adoption of Section 907. <br />Section 907. 07-T�ansfe� of P�ope�ty <br />We recommend adding language to Section 907.07, which governs the transfer of <br />properiy, to limit the ability of a properiy owner to whom a correction order has been issued to <br />transfer the property without first complying with the correction order or advising the new <br />proposed owner about the correction order. We have included proposed language for this <br />purpose in the enclosed draft Ordinance. <br />Section 907. 08 — Regist�ation Suspensions and Revocation <br />Section 907.08 provides that a registration may be suspended or revoked based on the <br />failure to provide inspection access when requested. We are concerned that a property owner <br />may challenge this language given the ruling in the case of Camara v. Munici�al Court of the <br />Citv and Countv of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967). In that case, the United States <br />Supreme Court concluded that either consent or an administrative warrant is necessary in order <br />conduct an inspection pursuant to a city housing code. Because Section 907.08 authorizes the <br />revocation of a registration if an owner does not consent to an inspection when requested, an <br />owner could argue that the law forces him to waive his constitutional right (i.e. his right to <br />insist on an administrative warrant prior to an inspection) or subjects him to punishment �r_�_ <br />the revocation of his registration) if he does not waive his constitutional right. A court could <br />find that this particular provision of the Ordinance violates the owner's right to insist upon the <br />City obtaining a warrant in order to conduct such an inspection. Thus, we have revised the <br />language to provide that a registration can be suspended or revoked based upon the failure to <br />provide inspection access when presented with an administrative warrant authorizing the <br />inspection. <br />Section 907.10-Violation <br />Section 907.10 provides that it is a violation of Section 970 to maintain a rental <br />dwelling unit without ha�ing the property registered. Again, we believe that there should be an <br />exception for current property owners who have not been previously required to register their <br />rental properties. We have added language to Section 907.10 to address that situation. <br />Section 907.10 also does not provide that it is a violation to maintain a rental dwelling <br />unit after the registration has been suspended or revoked. We have proposed language to this <br />Section which would address that situation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.