Opinion
D071022
11-14-2017
ELIZABETH BADDOUR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent.
Elizabeth Baddour, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Jennifer M. Stone, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2016-00019884-CU-WM-CTL) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel M. Pressman, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth Baddour, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Jennifer M. Stone, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Elizabeth Baddour appeals an order denying her petition for writ of mandamus in which she challenged a decision of the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services (Department) declaring her a public nuisance and imposing conditions and restrictions relating to her ownership of cats for a period of five years. Baddour contends (1) the superior court erred in denying her request for a continuance of the hearing on her writ petition; (2) the administrative record is defective; and (3) the Department did not provide Baddour with a fair hearing, abused its discretion, and did not proceed in a manner required by law. Baddour did not provide an adequate record for us to evaluate her first contention and she forfeited the second contention by failing to raise objections to the administrative record in the court below. The record provided by Baddour establishes the Department provided Baddour with a fair hearing and it did not abuse its discretion in issuing the public nuisance declaration and conditions of ownership. The Department's decision is supported by the findings, which are based upon substantial evidence in the record, and the Department proceeded in a manner required by law. We affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
A
On April 22, 2015, the Department issued a notice of intent to declare Baddour a public nuisance based upon 10 complaints alleging Baddour maintained cats in violation of San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances (SDCCRO), section 62.668 regarding conditions of animal ownership. The Department alleged Baddour housed numerous cats at properties in the County of San Diego from 2011 to 2015, which created sanitation issues at the properties. The notice requested Baddour be declared a public nuisance with an imposition of conditions and restrictions limiting her ownership of animals for five years to a total of six animals. The Department conducted a public nuisance hearing at Baddour's request. We summarize the evidence presented and the Department's findings.
SDCCRO section 62.668 provides, "An animal owner or custodian shall maintain the area where an animal is kept in a sanitary condition and shall not allow the area to become a breeding area for flies, a source of offensive odors or of human or animal disease, or an area that creates any other public nuisance or condition hazardous to humans or animals."
1
Normal Heights Residence
a
On February 24, 2011, an animal control officer responded to a complaint from a neighbor about noise and odor in connection with multiple cats at a Normal Heights residence. The officer knocked on the door, but received no response. The officer observed a vehicle loaded with cat supplies. The vehicle was registered to Baddour. The officer smelled cat urine when she was at the door.
The animal control officer returned on March 3, 2011, and was met by another neighbor who asked the officer to come into the neighbor's backyard to observe the noise and odor conditions, which the neighbor described as chronic. The officer smelled cat urine and heard cats yowling from the neighboring residence. The neighbor stated he could not use his backyard because of the stench and noise coming from Baddour's residence. As the animal control officer was leaving she was met by a San Diego Humane Society officer who was also responding to a complaint.
b
A neighbor complained again in October 2012 about numerous cats and poor sanitation. The neighbor complained of a horrendous smell and noise from the cats crying.
On December 4, 2012, an animal control officer responded to a call to investigate animals at Baddour's residence. The officer received no response when she knocked on the door. The officer smelled ammonia or cat urine around the door and the front of the house. She saw dishes and debris around the front of the property. The officer posted a notice of complaint on the door requesting Baddour to contact the Department. A couple of weeks later, the animal control officer returned to follow up on the notice. The officer observed similar conditions including old food bowls and debris piled near the house. There was a stronger smell of ammonia or cat urine.
c
On February 20, 2013, an animal control officer responded to a call from a police officer regarding an overwhelming odor of cat urine at the Normal Heights residence. The animal control officer met an elderly neighbor man who said Baddour had more than 20 cats. The animal control officer observed a strong smell of urine from the front of the property and a lot of flies near the side of the house. The officer also observed approximately 50 cat bowls stacked in front of the house. The officer posted another notice of complaint.
The other neighbor again invited the animal control officer into his backyard where the officer could smell a strong odor of cat urine. The officer could not see into Baddour's yard.
Baddour's neighbor testified he first met her in 2010 when he went over to her house because the cats were howling and crying at all hours of the night. Baddour told him the cats needed to be fixed and she was going to take care of it. The neighbor said it seemed the cats were in pain. The neighbor saw at least 12 cats at a time.
The neighbor stated the smell got worse over time. From 2011 he stated there was a continuous cat stench. He stated the smell was horrible in 2013 and did not abate until Baddour moved out in April 2013.
On March 10, 2013, another animal control officer followed up on the complaint requesting a welfare and sanitation check for the animals at the residence. The officer observed more debris, junk, piles of bowls, and a stronger urine smell around the property than the officer who had observed a few months earlier when that officer was there for a previous complaint. The officer posted another notice saying the Department received another complaint and needed to meet with Baddour to check on the welfare of the cats. The officer took photographs of food containers stacked on a chair, cat food near a vehicle, and things piled under tarps. The officer could smell cat urine from the public alleyway near the property and the smell became stronger closer to Baddour's front door.
On March 14, 2013, a third animal control officer went to the property, went into the neighbor's backyard, and could smell the distinct odor of cat urine. When the officer went to the door of Baddour's residence, she could smell the odor of cats. She took a video of the flies in the area and general garbage in the area. There was a car, trash, and cat food set out in the side yard. There were stacks of old food containers, which are often used for feeding animals. The containers were moldy and unsanitary. Baddour did not respond to knocks on the door. The animal control officer posted a notice on the property owner's door to contact the Department regarding the tenant's sanitation issue.
On May 1, 2013, an animal control officer met a sheriff's deputy to assist with the eviction of Baddour. According to the eviction notice posted on the door of the property, Baddour had 15 days to remove her property. The animal control officer could not remove the animals at the time since the animals were considered property. The animal control officer educated the landowner about the type of care that was needed for the cats. Baddour was told to make arrangements with the property owner to obtain access to her residence to care for the animals.
The animal control officer observed numerous cats throughout the house, in an enclosed patio, and in the rafters. Food and water were available, but no litter boxes. The home had the distinct unpleasant odor of cat urine and there were feces in the patio area. The odor was so unpleasant it made breathing difficult. This was unhealthy for humans or cats. In cats, it can cause allergy-looking skin, runny eyes, and sneezing. The cats appeared slightly underweight and they had patchy skin issues, which looked like a flea allergy.
2
Potrero Valley Road Residence
Baddour moved to an address on Potrero Valley Road in the Potrero region of San Diego County in July 2013. Baddour had an agreement with the landlord to house her cats in a shed or barn on the property. The Department received a call in September 2013 regarding Baddour housing cats at that address. According to Baddour, the landlord was concerned about the number of cats, but she reached an agreement with the landlord to keep as many cats at the property as allowed by law.
Baddour was eventually evicted in September 2014. The property owner called the Department to remove 30 to 40 cats. When the Department did not collect the cats right away, the property owner brought the cats to a shelter.
An animal control officer responded to the property on September 21, 2014. There were piles of carpeting and flooring near the front door that were removed by the property owner. They smelled like ammonia from cat urine. The property owner met with the officer and said the cats had destroyed her property. Clothing left in the home by Baddour smelled of cat urine. There was a strong odor throughout the home of cat urine in addition to a smell of bleach, which the property owner was using to clean. The property owner said there was only one litter box in the house for all of the cats. There was also an ammonia-like smell in the barn.
According to Baddour, she was forced to move from the property. The cats taken to the Department were the subject of a hearing in October 2014. The matter was resolved and some of the cats were returned to Baddour. Others were adopted. Baddour claimed her cats became sick because they were exposed to sick cats at the shelter.
3
Clairemont Property
After the eviction from the Potrero Valley Road property, Baddour received permission to temporarily house 50 cats at a home in the Clairemont neighborhood of San Diego. The cats were kept in a large cage and cat carriers.
When the cats stayed longer than expected, the person who gave permission to Baddour for the cats to stay at the home in Clairemont called the Department when the person was threatened with eviction. Neighbors complained about odors, flies, and noise from cats fighting. The person who allowed Baddour to temporarily house the cats kept her doors and windows closed because of the odor and noise.
The animal control officer who previously assisted with relocating Baddour's cats responded to the call in October 2014. The officer saw a chain-link enclosure containing 45 to 50 cats. The officer again noticed a sanitation odor as she approached the backyard. The cats had litter boxes and food. However, several cats were sneezing and appeared to have an upper respiratory infection. The officer posted a notice of complaint. The animal control officer spoke to Baddour and understood Baddour moved the cats to an address in east San Diego County.
4
Beaver Hollow Road Residence
Baddour moved the cats to Beaver Hollow Road, also in the Potrero region of San Diego County, in November 2014. Baddour lived in a trailer on the property. A witness testified he owned the trailer, which sat on property owned by an individual who provided the witness with therapy. The trailer owner also visited the property regularly to play in a band. On one occasion, the trailer owner found Baddour tending to a large number of cats in a cage he had built for birds. When he asked her to remove the cats, she said she would move them into the trailer. The trailer owner said she did not have his permission to live in the trailer with the cats and disputed she had permission from the property owner. He stated he could smell an overpowering stench of cat urine and cat feces from 40 to 50 feet away and did not like coming to the property. He stated they could not sit outside and play with the band or enjoy the serenity of the property because of the stench from the trailer.
5
Defense Case
Baddour testified on her own behalf. She stated her cats lived in a screened-in porch in the back of the house at the Normal Heights residence and did not create an odor in front of the residence. Baddour stated the flies were drawn by trash cans from all of the units. She stated she would leave food and water out in front of her house for feral or stray cats.
Baddour stated the landlord gave some men access to her property to help her pack for her move. She claimed these men left a door ajar and a bunch of feral cats came into the house. She denied allowing cats into the residence before that occasion unless they were sick, in which case she would keep them in the bathroom. She stated the residence was neat until the end when she was preparing for the move.
She stated the pictures of the Potrero Valley Road property after her eviction did not depict the conditions when she lived there. She denied there was a smell from feces or urine in the residence.
When the cats were housed at the Clairemont property, Baddour claimed she was prevented from entering the premises to care for the cats because she made a report about the family to child protective services. In turn, she claimed the person who allowed her to house the cats at the property reported her to the Department. Baddour claimed she did not have access to the premises to care for the cats for a couple of days before the animal control officer visited the property.
Baddour stated she had a verbal agreement with the property owner on Beaver Hollow Road to rent the trailer in October 2014. She claimed the person who said he owned the trailer prevented her from having access to the property to care for the cats. Baddour claimed the condition of the trailer was horrible when she arrived, but there was a roof over the cats. She claimed she kept the area clean from cat waste and kept the cats fed and watered. She also stated there were no neighbors nearby to be affected by the condition of the premises or the animals. Baddour said she was arrested twice in February 2015 for violating a restraining order when she went to the property to care for the cats. Baddour had 35 cats in an enclosure. At one point, she had 53 cats in the trailer.
6
Findings and Decision
The Department's hearing officer concluded a preponderance of the evidence established Baddour violated SDCCRO section 62.688 (1) at the Normal Heights residence in or about February 2011, February 2013, and April 2013, (2) at the Potrero Valley Road residence in or about September 2014, and (3) at the Clairemont property in or about October 2014. The officer decided Baddour should be declared a public nuisance pursuant to SDCCRO section 11.111, which defines public nuisance as any "violation of this code." The officer concluded conditions and restrictions for continued ownership and maintenance of animals should be imposed because the "chronic nature and similarity of the repeated violations of [SDCCRO], as well as the potential for animal and public health to be endangered by unsanitary conditions, is compelling in determining whether Baddour's possession of animals should be regulated by [the Department.]" (Some capitalization omitted.)
SDCCRO section 11.111 states any violation of the SDCCRO "whether it is an affirmative act, failure to act or failure to comply with any provision of this code is a public nuisance."
On March 16, 2016, the Department provided Baddour with notice of conditions and restrictions for five years from the effective date of the public nuisance declaration. Among the conditions imposed, Baddour was prohibited from owning, possessing, maintaining, or housing more than six animals within the County of San Diego. She was also required to maintain any animals in a sanitary and safe condition so as not to be a hazard to the animal(s), a fly-breeding reservoir, a source of offensive odors, or of human or animal disease.
B
Departmental Administrative Review
Baddour requested a departmental administrative review of the hearing officer's findings. She challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the hearing officer's decision and contended the hearing officer did not give sufficient consideration to her defense testimony or to her challenges to the credibility of the complaining witnesses. She also contended the evidence did not support a finding of public nuisance under Civil Code section 3480 because there was no evidence of multiple complaints arising at the same time at any property and the local ordinance relied upon by the hearing officer is "incompatible with California's definition of public nuisance."
As requested, the Department conducted an administrative review and upheld the hearing officer's decision finding the Department proceeded within its authority, conducted a fair hearing, and there was no prejudicial abuse of discretion. Although the Department's findings were based on SDCCRO ordinances rather than state statutes, the Department concluded state law authorizes abatement of a public nuisance affecting a single individual. (Civ. Code, §§ 3493, 3495.) The Department noted "there appears not a singular incident nor accident of simple neglect, but a consistent and repeated failure on the part of [Baddour] to provide necessary husbandry for the animals in her possession. The record reflects failure to provide proper care since at least February 2011 in several locations in the county. Numerous contacts with animal control authorities have had a negligible effect—violations continue. Because of the foregoing, it is appropriate and proper to impose special regulation upon [Baddour]."
The notice of results of the administrative review were sent to Baddour on April 20, 2016, stating there would be no stay of the Department's decision upholding the hearing officer's decision imposing conditions for ownership of animals.
The attorney who represented Baddour informed the Department in May he no longer represented her.
C
Abatement Proceeding for Violation of Conditions
On May 26, 2016, Baddour was found in possession of 26 cats, housed in a horse stable. The Department served Baddour with a notice of abatement notifying her the cats had been impounded for failure to comply with the conditions previously imposed, including the limitation on the number of cats she could possess, house, or maintain.
Baddour requested a hearing and contested the impoundment of her cats. The Department acknowledged receipt of the hearing request and set the hearing for June 15, 2016.
The hearing regarding the notice of abatement proceeded on June 15, 2016. After hearing evidence and arguments from both the Department and Baddour, the hearing officer found Baddour owned 25 of the 26 cats she possessed on May 26, 2016, in violation of the conditions and restrictions set out in the public nuisance declaration. An animal control officer found 26 cats living in a horse stall "in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, showing signs of flea infestation" in violation of the conditions and restrictions. The evidence showed Baddour moved at least once without notifying the Department of her new address in violation of the conditions and restrictions. Of the 26 cats in her custody and control, one was a kitten, showing she was continuing to increase her cat population in violation of the conditions and restrictions. Therefore, the hearing officer concluded the abatement impound was legal. The hearing officer determined a new declaration would be entered against Baddour prohibiting ownership and custody of all animals with the exception of one dog for a period of five years.
Baddour objected to the hearing stating she had filed a petition for writ of mandate with the superior court. The hearing officer informed Baddour the petition was only a request for stay and there was no stay of the Department's nuisance declaration or abatement notice until the superior court ruled.
In this appeal from the petition for writ of mandate, Baddour challenges the seizure of her cats, but does not otherwise challenge the Department's abatement decision.
D
Petition for Writ of Mandate
Baddour filed a petition for writ of mandate on June 13, 2016, (before the abatement hearing) asking for a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Department to vacate its order of April 20, 2016, declaring her a public nuisance and to return her cats. It also sought an immediate stay of the proposed destruction of some of her cats as well as a stay of further impoundment or abatement.
Prior to the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate, the superior court granted Baddour's request for a temporary restraining order to keep the cats in the status quo until the writ hearing.
After considering briefing and argument, the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate. The court concluded the Department did not abuse its discretion in declaring Baddour a public nuisance because the Department proceeded in a manner required by law, the decision was supported by the findings, and there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings.
DISCUSSION
I
Baddour contends the court erred in denying her request for a continuance of the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate due to the size of the administrative record and the timing of its service upon her. However, there is no record of why Baddour requested a continuance. The record contains only one line in the court's minute order indicating Baddour's request to continue the hearing was denied.
"[A] party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.' [Citation.] ' "A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent ... ." ' [Citation.] A proper record includes a reporter's transcript or a settled statement of any hearing leading to the order being challenged on appeal." (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 (Elena S.).)
"We cannot presume error from an incomplete record." (Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412.) We are not permitted to speculate as to the contents of the missing portions of the record or the issues that may have been raised below. (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) The failure to provide an adequate record on appeal "precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court's determination." (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1.)
Although Baddour is representing herself, the rules of civil procedure apply equally to her. "A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys." (Elena S., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 574; see Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 (Nwosu).)
II
Baddour next contends there are defects in the administrative record making it "incomplete and unreliable." She contends the word " 'unintel' " appears throughout the transcripts. Since the hearing was tape-recorded, these appear to be places where the transcriptionist found the audio recording unintelligible. Baddour contends most of her testimony is "missing" and contends certain documents were improperly included in the record. However, Baddour did not object to any defects in the administrative record lodged by the Department with the superior court or otherwise suggest the record should be corrected or augmented. As a result, she forfeited any procedural errors in this regard. (In re A.C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 661, 671-672, citing Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1.)
Further, "[i]n a [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 proceeding, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a sufficient record of the administrative proceedings; '... otherwise the presumption of regularity will prevail, since the burden falls on the petitioner attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate to the trial court where the administrative proceedings were unfair, were in excess of jurisdiction, or showed " 'prejudicial abuse of discretion.' " ' " (Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 354.) The administrative record submitted in this case, even if it is only a partial record, provides an adequate basis for a reviewing court to affirm or reverse the agency decision. (Id. at p. 355.)
III
"Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 provides for review of the decisions of administrative agencies. The scope of our review extends to whether the agency proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency fails to proceed in the manner required by law, the findings are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings." (Zuniga v. County of San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1521, 1530, fn. 6 (Zuniga).)
Although California recognizes domesticated animals can be considered property (Civ. Code, § 655), Baddour cited no authority supporting her contention there is a fundamental vested right to own pets. (See contra Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 388 ["There is no federal or state constitutional provision ... that confers ... a general right to keep household pets ... ."]; People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384-385 [probation condition requiring probationer to notify probation of ownership of pets does not implicate a fundamental right]; Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1220 [ordinance requiring altering of pets does not involve a fundamental right].)
The case of Fuller v. Vines (9th Cir. 1994) 36 F.3d 65, 68 does not assist Baddour. It concluded a claim could be stated against police officers for killing (seizing) a family dog without due process in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but does not address ownership of an animal as a fundamental right. Baddour was provided with notice and a hearing regarding the declaration of her as a public nuisance and later in notice and hearing regarding abatement for violating the pet limitation condition. --------
In cases where no fundamental vested right is involved, we review the Department's decision under the substantial evidence standard. "Our function in reviewing agency action is identical with that of the superior court. [Citation.] Thus, we examine the entire record, considering both the evidence that supports the decision and the evidence against it." (Zuniga, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1530-1531.) "[W]e review the administrative record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency's findings. [Citation.] In that review, we resolve all conflicts in the evidence and draw all inferences in support of the agency's findings." (Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1281.)
A
Baddour received due process and a fair hearing. The Department provided notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the public nuisance declaration over the course of a four-day hearing. Baddour was represented by counsel who cross-examined witnesses and presented witnesses on her behalf. Baddour does not provide record citations for her contention the hearing officer denied a continuance request or that her case was prejudiced by the lack of notice of the witnesses or exhibits. "It is not the task of the reviewing court to search the record for evidence that supports the party's statement; it is for the party to cite the court to those references. Upon the party's failure to do so, the appellate court need not consider or may disregard the matter." (Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1; see Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246 [statements in appellate briefs not supported by citations to the record are improper and cannot be considered].)
Additionally, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment with regard to the seizure of animals after Baddour was found in violation of the conditions imposed by the Department. The animal control officer who impounded the cats in May 2016 testified she informed the property owner she was at the property and intended to impound the cats. The property owner did not object. Additionally, Baddour unlocked the stall where the cats were housed. (Flahive v. City of Dana Point (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 241, 246 [warrant not needed when there is consent to enter private property].)
B
After hearing evidence and arguments, the Department concluded Baddour was a public nuisance as defined by SDCCRO section 11.111 because she maintained numerous cats over a period of years at three locations in San Diego County in violation of the conditions of ownership provision of SDCCRO section 62.668. The hearing officer did not make the nuisance finding for every incident presented by the Department. Instead, it focused on three time periods at the Normal Heights property: February 2011, February 2013, and April 2013; one incident at the Potrero Valley Road residence in September 2014; and one incident at the Clairemont property in October 2014. There was substantial evidence to support the Department's findings and the findings supported the Department's decision to declare Baddour a public nuisance.
Animal control officers investigated complaints from neighbors regarding odor and noise from numerous cats at the Normal Heights residence in February 2011, February 2013, and April 2013. From both a neighboring yard and near the front of Baddour's residence, animal control officers smelled the offensive stench of cat urine emanating from Baddour's residence. Flies were also present around Baddour's residence. The odor was so bad it made breathing difficult and the cats were found to have symptoms of allergies and upper respiratory illnesses. These conditions violated SDCCRO section 62.668. The property owner who evicted Baddour from the Portrero Valley Road property in September 2014 complained Baddour's cats ruined the property. The animal control officer smelled a heavy odor of urine from carpeting that had been removed from Baddour's residence as well as urine in the house. The Department reasonably concluded evidence of the extensive smell lingering in the flooring materials was sufficient to find by a preponderance of evidence that Baddour's cats were kept in an unsanitary and filthy condition because the odor could not be the result of one day in which Baddour claimed she did not have access to her cats before the property owner brought them to the Department.
Finally, an animal control officer observed a large enclosure with 45 to 50 cats at the Clairemont property in October 2014. The area also smelled of cat urine and the animals appeared to have upper respiratory illnesses. The witness who initially allowed Baddour to house the cats in a yard at the property testified she needed to keep the doors and windows of her home closed because of the odor and noise of the cats.
In each instance, substantial evidence supports a finding of a violation of SDCCRO section 62.668, which requires an animal owner to "maintain the area where an animal is kept in a sanitary condition and ... not allow the area to become a breeding area for flies, a source of offensive odors or of human or animal disease, or an area that creates any other public nuisance or condition hazardous to humans or animals." These findings support the Department's decision to declare Baddour a public nuisance.
C
Baddour finally contends the Department did not proceed in a manner required by law because it relied upon nuisance regulations from the SDCCRO rather than California's statute regarding public nuisance, Civil Code section 3480, which defines public nuisance as "one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal."
Courts have long rejected such a contention. "[T]he power to pass general police regulations to prevent nuisances, and such power is not limited to the suppression of those things which are nuisances per se within the meaning of ... sections 3479 and 3480 of the Civil Code." (People v. Johnson (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, citing In re Application of Mathews (1923) 191 Cal. 35, 39 [" 'The power to regulate or prohibit conferred upon the board of supervisors not only includes nuisances, but extends to everything expedient for the preservation of the public health, and the prevention of contagious diseases' "].) There is no conflict between the SDCCRO and the Civil Code.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Baddour's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed. The Department shall recover its costs on appeal.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, J. HUFFMAN, J.