NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

GILBERT, P.J.

This is an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction ordering the abatement of a public nuisance. We affirm.

Dan DeVaul owns a 72-acre farm property in San Luis Obispo County. Sunny Acres, Inc. (Sunny Acres) is a non-profit corporation that allegedly operates a "clean and sober living environment to those in recovery for drug and alcohol addiction." Sunny Acres operates its program on DeVaul's property.

Sunny Acres, DeVaul and a number of residents of Sunny Acres filed a petition for writ of mandate to prevent the County of San Luis Obispo (County) from abating a nuisance, for damages and injunction. The County cross-complained for a preliminary injunction to prevent the maintenance of a nuisance and for the appointment of a receiver. In granting the County's request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court found as follows:

At least since January 2005, the County has been conducting administrative nuisance abatement proceedings against Sunny Acres and DeVaul for violations of the County Code. Four nuisance abatement hearings were held before the County Board of Supervisors. After the hearings, the board found the code violations constituted nuisances and ordered their abatement.

In September 2007, an inspection of the property revealed numerous fire, plumbing, electrical and structural hazards. The structures were posted as dangerous with an order not to enter.

In February 2008, an inspection confirmed ongoing violations of the Fire Code, Building Code and Health and Safety Code. The violations concerned wiring, fire exits, ventilation and structural defects.

On July 14, 2009, a fire broke out on the premises. During the response, the County discovered that unpermitted structures were continuing to be used for human habitation, and that additional unpermitted structures also were used for human habitation. A stucco agricultural barn had been converted into a dormitory-style residence without building or land use permits; an accessory shed was converted into living quarters and a bathroom without a permit; new sheds were under construction for use as living quarters without a permit; and the barn had been converted into a commercial kitchen without a permit.

The County also discovered that a number of recreation vehicles on the property were being used for permanent human habitation in violation of the County Code. These vehicles were using unauthorized power sources and were surrounded by overgrown vegetation.

The County ordered DeVaul and Sunny Acres to cease all use of illegal structures for human habitation by July 30, 2009, and to apply for permits to either demolish or restore the structures to their original use by August 23, 2009. The County discovered that on-site water wells were contaminated with coliform bacteria. It ordered an alternative source of drinking water to be supplied by August 14, 2009. The County ordered 16 hazardous waste violations corrected by July 23, 2009.

DeVaul and Sunny Acres have been promising the County for years that they intend to make the necessary repairs and improvements. They repeatedly have failed to do so. "[T]he potential harm to the public from failing to act outweighs the potential harm to the cross-defendants and the Sunny Acres' residents who will be forced to relocate." The trial court stated, "In sum, Mr. DeVaul and Sunny Acres have been charging a fee of approximately $300 each month to approximately 30 vulnerable tenants/clients in illegal, dangerous and substandard structures that have been posted as unlawful to enter."

The trial court ordered as follows:

Sunny Acres appealed the order.

DISCUSSION

I

Sunny Acres contends there is no showing of an emergency or irreparable harm to support the injunction.

But where a public entity seeks to enjoin a nuisance per se arising from a statutory violation, it need not prove harm nor show it will prevail in a balancing of harms. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 70.) Instead, where the public entity shows it probably will succeed at trial in proving a statutory violation, public harm is presumed. (Ibid.) We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 69.)

II

Sunny Acres contends the injunction violates the Fair Housing Act (FHA). (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.)

Sunny Acres points out that the FHA prohibits discrimination against disabled persons in the sale or rental of property. (Citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1).) It claims its clients are disabled by drug or alcohol addiction. It argues the County breached the FHA by not providing reasonable accommodation for the disabled. (Citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).)

Sunny Acres neglects to mention that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dismissed an administrative complaint by DeVaul alleging that the County was violating the FHA. HUD found there is no reasonable cause to believe discriminatory housing practices occurred. HUD also dismissed DeVaul's motion to reconsider.

In any event, Sunny Acres cites no authority that enforcement of building codes and land use ordinances constitutes discrimination under the FHA. Nor does Sunny Acres cite any authority that the County must relax its enforcement of codes and ordinances designed to protect healthy and safety under the guise of reasonable accommodation to the disabled. To the contrary, the enforcement of such codes and ordinances is eminently reasonable.

Sunny Acres's reliance on title 42 United States Code section 3604(f)(3)(B) is misplaced. That subdivision provides unlawful discrimination includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling . . . ."

Sunny Acres cites no authority applying the subdivision to third parties, such as the County, as opposed to sellers and landlords. Nor does Sunny Acres cite authority construing the subdivision as applying to codes and ordinances designed to protect health and safety. Any such construction would be unreasonable.

III

Sunny Acres contends some of the trial court's findings are not supported by the evidence.

"In viewing the evidence, we look only to the evidence supporting the prevailing party. . . . We discard evidence unfavorable to the prevailing party as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact. . . . Where the trial court or jury has drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence, we have no power to draw different inferences, even though different inferences may also be reasonable. . . . The trier of fact is not required to believe even uncontradicted testimony." (Rodney F. v. Karen M. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 233, 241, citations omitted.)

Sunny Acres argues there is no evidence that the recovering addicts it serves pay $300 per month each as rent. Sunny Acres claims the $300 per month each resident pays is a "program fee" that includes meals, transportation, substance abuse support, recreation, vocational activities and shelter. This supports the reasonable conclusion that Sunny Acres receives $300 per month rent per client. The trial court is not bound by Sunny Acres's characterization of the payment as a program fee.

Sunny Acres is apparently offended that the trial court characterized its operations as a business. It is a federally recognized non-profit corporation. It does not deny that it receives over $100,000 a year from its residents. It is a business.

Sunny Acres argues the trial court erroneously stated the County has been conducting the same administrative nuisance abatement proceedings since 2005. The court found, "Since at least January 2005, the County has been conducting administrative nuisance abatement proceedings for multiple violations of the County Code." The court did not state the County has been holding the same administrative proceedings since 2005.

In any event, whether the same administrative proceedings have been ongoing since 2005 is not the point. What Sunny Acres does not contest is the trial court's findings that since 2001 Sunny Acres has been the subject of multiple enforcement actions for land use and County Code violations. Nor does Sunny Acres contest that land use and code violations presently exist. That code violations continue to exist is the basis for the injunction.

Sunny Acres argues there is no evidence that the violations are a threat to the safety, health or welfare of its neighbors. But public harm is presumed from the County's showing of statutory violations. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 70.)

Sunny Acres argues that some of the structures the trial court included in its abatement order were not subject to nuisance abatement hearings conducted by the County in 2008. Sunny Acres claims these unpermitted "cabins" were not constructed until 2009. Sunny Acres believes the cabins should not have been included in the court's order.

But Sunny Acres cites no authority that formal abatement hearings are a prerequisite to a preliminary injunction. What Sunny Acres fails to acknowledge is that the unpermitted cabins were subject to a July 2009 abatement notice and order.

Sunny Acres argues there is no evidence that a health and safety problem arises from the use of the barn as a public dining room and commercial kitchen. But public harm is presumed from a showing of a statutory violation. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 70.) That a men's club may have used the building for cooking and dining since the 1950's does not makes it any more safe and sanitary. Nor was the trial court required to find laboratory tests submitted by Sunny Acres credible.

Finally, Sunny Acres argues there is no evidence that the 16 hazardous waste violations affect occupancy of the property. But is takes no leap of logic for the trial court to conclude that hazardous waste is, in fact, hazardous to the occupants of the property.

Sunny Acres has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction. Overwhelming evidence shows numerous continuing violations of codes and ordinances designed to protect health and safety. The evidence, as well as the issues raised by Sunny Acres in this appeal, also show that neither Sunny Acres nor DeVaul has any intention of voluntarily abating the violations. The trial court would have abused its discretion had it not issued a preliminary injunction.

We appreciate Sunny Acres's counsel's concern for the plight of the homeless people living at the site. This concern will be greatly alleviated when Sunny Acres remedies the code violations occurring on the premises.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the County.

We concur.

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.