Irena Hauser applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to house her five cats. The Ventura County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors denied her request. So, she sued them, and lost at the trial court. Not to be swayed, she then appealed the trial court's decision. Oh yeah, and by the way, her five cats are full grown tigers. And her 19-acre property is located in an unincorporated area of Ventura County, California near the City of Malibu. Five tigers caged up within a half-mile of 57 residential lots, 28 of which are occupied and 46 homes within one mile from the project...what could possibly go wrong?

In her CUP application, she stated that Hauser and her sister both completed an 8-day training course on animal husbandry, safety, and training. What she failed to mention was, according to the training company's website, "There is no written exam nor any reading necessary for completing this course. All students receive Certificates of Completion." She also included that a family member would be present on the property at all times. The County noticed that only two of them received training, so how does having other family members present, that have no training whatsoever, reduce the risks?

Hauser uses the animals in the entertainment industry. They have been used in movies, commercials, and still photography. The plan was to transport the animals to locations using a sport utility vehicle or truck up to 60 times per year. The neighbors are not as excited about this plan as Hauser is. They presented a petition containing 11,000 signatures opposing the CUP.

Hauser made several arguments in her favor during the trial. The appellate court noted that the trial court did not have an obligation to view the presented argument as favorably as Hauser does. She argued that Ventura County never established a cutoff point for residential density for areas allowing tigers. The courts agreed that it is clearly a residential area and no cutoff point needs to be determined. She argued her property is an "open space". However, she failed to prove how the open space designation applies to a "tiger compound". Hauser argued there are other locations with higher population densities where tigers are kept. The courts pointed out that each situation has to be analyzed separately. Opponents mentioned the unfortunate circumstance when a tiger escaped from its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo, killing one person and mauling two others. The enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo is much more substantial than the one proposed by Hauser. The opponents also discussed the situation where a highly experienced Las Vegas entertainer was mauled and nearly died from the experience. Both situations included better facilities and better trained people, yet bad things still happened.

Hauser claimed the Board denied her appeal because no matter how safe the proposed facility would be, no one can completely eliminate the possibility of human error. She included in her argument, "Impossibilium nulla obligatio est.", meaning that there can be no obligation to do the impossible and removing all probability of human error is impossible. The appellate court remarked that they are more impressed by the Latin than the argument. No one is obligating Hauser to do the impossible. In fact, the Board's decision does not obligate Hauser to do anything. Her argument, instead, shows that her neighbors must bear the risk of her inability to avoid human error. Her well-intentioned desire to own tigers does not trump her neighbors' right to safety and peace of mind.

Hauser also tried another tactic. She claimed the public hearings were not fair because several board members conducted meetings with several neighbors voicing complaints outside of the public hearing. However, each private meeting was disclosed during the public meeting, which is in compliance with policy. Hauser also met privately with several board members. So, she was complaining about the same action she herself took part in. The courts rejected this argument as well.

The appellate court ruled that Hauser received a full and fair hearing which covers over 3,340 pages of administrative record. Hauser failed to provide any evidence that her project was denied for any reason other than its own merits. The judgment is affirmed. The residents of Ventura County can rest easy that there are no tigers moving into their neighborhood anytime soon.