CA Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Condition Use Permit Prohibiting Petitioner from Keeping Tigers on Property

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.
Petitioner Hauser applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to keep up to five tigers on her property. Hauser alleged that the animals would be used in the entertainment business, including movie sets, commercials and still photography. The animals would be transported from the property by sport utility vehicle or truck up to 60 times a year. After the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors denied her application, Hauser petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandate. In this case, Hauser appealed the trial court’s denial of the petition.

At the outset, the court noted the fact that there were 57 residential lots, 28 residences within a half mile, and 46 homes within a mile of the project was a sufficient reason to deny the project in itself. Nevertheless, on appeal Hauser cited a Board staff report stating that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a tiger would escape from her facility. Here, the administrative record contained numerous instances in which tigers have escaped. Specifically, the court cited an example in which a tiger escaped from an enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo that had a 20-foot-wide moat and a 12-and-one-half-foot-high wall. In that case the tiger killed a teenager and followed two other people for 300 yards before mauling them. Additionally, the record reflected that Hauser’s only formal training was an eight-day class in which students were promised in advance that there would be no written exam, no reading, and all students would receive a certificate of completion.

As to Hauser’s contention that she did not receive a fair hearing before the Board, the record reflected that before Hauser’s presentation, Board members disclosed prehearing contacts concerning Hauser’s CUP petition. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Board members had any personal bias against Hauser or were in favor of the project opponents, or any indication that they promised to vote in any particular way. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Hauser’s petition was upheld.

Hauser v Ventura County Bd of Supervisors, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 159 (CA App. 2/20/2018)