Pastore v. County of Santa Cruz CA6

Filed 6/28/16 Pastore v. County of Santa Cruz CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

VINCENT PASTORE, H042521 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV180558)

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

In this second of two related appeals, plaintiff Vincent Pastore challenges an order striking a purported “appeal” to the superior court from an administrative order—in this case, an order imposing upon him certain costs incurred by the County of Santa Cruz (County) in abating a nuisance on his property. He contends that he was entitled bring such an appeal pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4 (§ 53069.4), which, properly construed, authorizes direct appeal from certain orders imposing “fines and penalties” pursuant to local ordinance. Since the order from which he purported to appeal was intended to compensate the county and not to punish or deter, it did not impose a fine or penalty and the statute does not apply. Accordingly, plaintiff’s “appeal” was properly stricken.

BACKGROUND As described in our decision in the related appeal (Pastore v. County of Santa Cruz, No. H042688, filed herewith), County issued an order in April 2014 abating a nuisance on property of which plaintiff is the record owner. The nuisance consisted of grading and land-clearing, without a permit, for purposes of cultivating medical cannabis. On July 24, after an administrative hearing, a hearing officer affirmed the order and directed that plaintiff abate the nuisance. The order provided that if plaintiff failed to abate the nuisance in a timely manner, the planning director was authorized “to cause the abatement of the public nuisance . . . and . . . report on the abatement costs pursuant to Santa Cruz County Code section 1.14.050.” The last-cited section authorizes imposition of a special assessment on property to recover costs incurred by County in abating a nuisance after the landowner has failed to do so. (Santa Cruz County Code, tit. 1 § 1.14.050.) On November 26, 2014, a county hearing officer issued a decision and order finding abatement costs of $18,962.45 and making them a special assessment lien against plaintiff’s property, to be recorded within 21 days if not paid sooner.1 On December 3, 2014, acting in propria persona, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Appeal of Hearing Officer Decision and Order” in the superior court challenging the order of November 26. The notice recited that the appeal was taken “pursuant to California Code [sic] Section 53069.4,” and asked the clerk to “set this cause for hearing before the above entitled Court, where the same shall be heard de novo in accordance with California Code [sic] Section 53069.4.”