County of Santa Cruz v. Kaylor CA6

Filed 12/17/14 County of Santa Cruz v. Kaylor CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, H040243 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CV168369)

v.

ROY KAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following trial, appellant Roy Kaylor’s property was declared a public nuisance and the trial court appointed a receiver to bring the property into compliance with the Santa Cruz County Code (County Code). Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to remove his personal possessions from the property. We affirm the order.

I. Statement of the Case Appellant owns approximately 150 acres near Big Basin State Park in Boulder Creek, California. In November 2006, the County of Santa Cruz (County) issued to him a notice of violation, which cited the following violations of the County Code: (1) section 13.10.140, subdivision (a) [noncompliance with zoning regulations]; (2) section 13.10.275, subdivision (g) [violations of allowed uses in a timber harvest zone district];

(3) section 13.10.279, subdivision (a) [continuance of a code violation]; (4) section 13.10.556 [illegal outdoor storage of personal property and materials]; and (5) section 13.10.683 [parking and use of travel trailers and recreational vehicles without permits]. Appellant failed to bring his property into compliance with the County Code. In August 2010, the County filed a complaint for abatement of a nuisance, injunctive relief, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs. The following month, appellant filed an amended answer in which he denied the allegations and asserted that he had already hauled 72 pickup truck loads of trash to the local dump and evicted or removed approximately 250 people, mostly methamphetamine addicts, from the property over a 26-year period. In November 2010, appellant filed a demand for a jury trial. The following month, the County moved to strike the demand. In March 2011, appellant was now represented by counsel, James Ritchey, and requested court mediation. The trial court set the case for court mediation and granted the County’s motion to strike the demand for a jury trial. On May 24, 2011, the County filed the declaration of Kevin Fitzpatrick, a senior code compliance officer for the County. Two days earlier, Fitzpatrick had compiled an inventory of items on appellant’s property. The inventory included: 88 vehicles, approximately 40 tires, miscellaneous auto parts, assorted junk and trash, storage containers, junk piles, a water tank, toilets, surfboards, batteries, refrigerators, and a catamaran. After the case was successfully mediated, the trial court directed the County to prepare the order. However, the parties were unable to agree on the written terms. On July 29, 2011, Ritchey substituted out of the case and appellant represented himself. On August 30, 2011, appellant requested the appointment of a public defender. The trial court denied the request. The matter was set for a court trial on November 10, 2011. 2