1814 PACIFIC AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

,, : � �-�,N-..� ,s v:, -,( GEORGE EASTh4AN, Chlef Administrative Assistnnt ro Fao„, ALLEN J. H�NDRICKS, City Attorney on1E JunC� 3� 1975 ' SUBJ[CT QTY OF Lb'EFLTT. C`CRLIT. YlASHINGION inspection of John N. Garner's Premises FACTUAL BACKGROUND John N. Garner contected me regarding the procedures followed by members of the Community Development Depurtment in gnining entry ' into e house he owned at 1814 1/2 Pneific Ave. R7y understanding of the facts ebout the entry nre as follows: ' 1. On Mey ]2, 1975, (Monday) u tenent by the name of Mr. tiollinger, I moved out ot the premises at 1814 1/2 1-�cific. However, prior to the time he moved from the premises, his niece, Ruth Iiollinger, n non-tennnt, � aew the property and wns upset about its condition. 2. On May 12, 1975, the niece, Ruth Hollin�;er, requested the City � investigators to take n look ut the house. She stated ahe was Acting ns her uncles' ngent and had custody of the property. I3. On May 14, Robert Royce, our inspector, inspected the premises , and found an inadequete electricel ayatem ne well ae pmblems ' with the heating nnd plumbing eyetems. The property was poeted and i b7olly Bejelkc, Mr. Garner's property manager, was notiCed prior to ' its being posted. Also a letter wna sent to 117r. Garner reQarding this aituation. � 4. n7r. Garner mentions that the entry was illegnl in that he did not receive the prescribed 4R houra edvance notice, purannnt to Ordinanr.e No. 315-74. 5. Frenk Aennett, Director of Community Development, on the other hend, malnteina that the 48 hwr advance notice requirement is not applicahle wt�en an inspection is requested by someone in possession. ANALYS IS: In my enalyaie of this eituation, I have concluded the following: 1. It ie poasible to interpret Ordinance No. 315-74 in such a way that the 48 hours �dvence natice requirement ie not applicaUle in situetions where the City inspectors are requHsted to enter the premises hy I someone in poasession of ihe premie�ea. . j