Board of Sup'rs of Riverside County v. Superior Court In and For Riverside County
| Citation | 305 P.2d 255,147 Cal.App.2d 424 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1957 |
| Parties | The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, State of California, and William E. Jones, Fred McCall, Roman Warren, Paul J. Anderson and George Berkey, as members of said Board, Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent. Desert Turf Club, a Corporation, Real Party In Interest. Civ. 5553. |
Ray T. Sullivan, Jr., County Counsel, Riverside, Leo A. Deegan, Deputy County Counsel and James H. Angel, Asst. County Counsel, Riverside, for petitioners.
Martin C. Casey, San Bernardino and John E. Glover, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
Best, Best & Kriger, Riverside, amicus curiae.
In these proceedings, petitioners seek a writ, directed to respondent Superior Court in Riverside County and to Desert Turf Club, prohibiting (1) The enforcement of an order made by said Superior Court on October 11, 1956, in action No. 61652; (2) Any further proceedings in the matter of the petition for a writ of mandate in action No. 64722 in said court, filed August 14, 1956; and (3) Any further action upon the peremptory writ of mandate in said action No. 61652 which will in any way interfere with the board of supervisors' right to promptly call and complete a public hearing on notice on the application of the Desert Turf Club.
In July, 1954, the California Horse Racing Board issued a license to Desert Turf Club to conduct quarter horse race meetings at a proposed race track establishment to be constructed near Rancho Mirage, near Palm Springs, in Riverside county, and found that the turf club had shown that the conducting of quarter horse race meetings of the proposed Palm Springs track would be in the public interest and would subserve the purposes of the California Horse Racing Act. West's Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, § 19400 et seq.
The site for the proposed track was located in M-3 zone of Riverside county, as established by zoning ordinance No. 348 of said county, and it was necessary, therefore, for the turf club to obtain a permit from the county board of supervisors before the track was established. The Desert Turf Club, in January, 1955, filed its application for such a permit with the planning commission of said county. On February 15, 1955, a public hearing on this application was conducted before the planning commission and a further public hearing was conducted thereon before the board of supervisors on March 28, 1955. Both of these hearings were conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 3.2 of article III of the said ordinance and the notices therein provided for were given as to each such public hearing.
On February 23, 1955, the planning commission made its order and decision recommending to the board of supervisors that the application be granted upon certain terms and conditions, all of which were accepted and agreed to by the applicant. The planning commission then filed with the board of supervisors, in addition to its recommendation and decision, a summary of the testimony presented at the hearing and reports and exhibits which had been introduced in evidence.
The board of supervisors, at its hearing on March 28, 1955, received in evidence the report and decision of the planning commission, the entire file and records of the commission on its hearing, the evidence of several witnesses, some for and some against the granting of the permit, and also various petitions and letters in opposition thereto. The board of supervisors then, by unanimous vote, denied the application.
On April 22, 1955, the Desert Turf Club filed its petition for a writ of mandate, praying that the board of supervisors be required to cancel its order denying the permit, and to make an order granting it.
The trial court in this proceeding (action No. 61652) denied the peremptory writ of mandate, discharged the alternative writ and determined in its conclusions of law that the order of the board of supervisors denying the application for a permit was sufficiently supported by substantial evidence and concluded further that the board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unlawfully; that petitioner was not denied a fair trial and that '(a)lthough the licensing throughout the State of California of horse racing tracks where pari-mutuel wagering is conducted is a matter of general and statewide concern, the same is, nevertheless, a municipal affair and is subject to local regulation as embodied by the provisions of Ordinance No. 348 of the county of Riverside, Section 3.1, article III thereof.' The Desert Turf Club appealed from the judgment in this action, and the decision of this court on appeal was filed May 11, 1956, Desert Turf Club v. Board of Supervisors, 141 Cal.App.2d 446, 296 P.2d 882, 888. This court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the State has taken over in its entirety the whole subject of horse racing and that a board of supervisors cannot overrule the act of the People of the State in adopting a constitutional amendment and the legislature of the State in passing a full and comprehensive plan for the licensing and control of horse racing by prohibiting on moral grounds what the State expressly permits; that a board of supervisors, acting in good faith, may, by properly adopting zoning restrictions, exclude on soundly based grounds the installation of a horse racing track or any other type of activity from those portions of the county as to which such exclusion is reasonable; that, eliminating the opinion evidence and evidence in opposition to the permit on moral grounds, there was insufficient evidence to uphold the decision of the board of supervisors or the findings of the trial court; that the board of supervisors has a proper field for the operation of its discretion in the enforcement of its zoning ordinance after eliminating the moral grounds of opposition to racing, and it is not without jurisdiction to pass upon the application of the Desert Turf Club. It was further held that:
'The writ should be directed to the Board of Supervisors and its members requiring them to cancel and annul the order denying appellant's application, and to reopen the hearing with leave to hold a supplemental hearing upon due notice if they be so advised, and to reconsider the petition of appellants as to land use, wholly excluding any consideration as to the alleged immorality of horse racing and betting as authorized by State law, and wholly excluding from such consideration all testimony not received in open hearing, and all statements of alleged fact and arguments in petitions and letters on file, except the bare fact that the petitioners or letter writters approve or oppose the granting of the petition; also wholly excluding each and every instance of hearsay testimony unless supported by properly admissible testimony, it being further required that the attorneys representing any party in interest be granted a reasonable opportunity to examine or cross-examine every new witness produced. * * *
'The judgment is reversed, with instructions upon the going down of the remittitur to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion, and to enter a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate directed to the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County and the members thereof requiring them forthwith to cancel and annul their order denying appellant's petition and to proceed without delay to carry on and complete a hearing in the manner indicated and set forth in this opinion.'
Following the filing of the remittitur, amended findings of fact and judgment were filed by the trial court and in its judgment, entered July 25, 1956, the court ordered that a writ of mandate be issued commanding the board of supervisors to forthwith cancel and annul the order of the board made on March 28, 1955, and to proceed to determine whether or not they should reopen the hearing upon the application of Desert Turf Club, held on March 28, 1955, and if desired by said Board hold a supplemental hearing thereon upon due notice thereof; reconsider the application of Desert Turf Club as to land use; and upon such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Supervisors v. Archer
...was issued compelling the District Attorney of Los Angeles County to bring abatement proceedings. In Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 424, 305 P.2d 255, the board of supervisors was granted a writ of prohibition prohibiting the enforcement of a superior court ord......