In Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (— F.3d. —, 2006 WL 2129737, 9th Cir.(Cal.), Aug. 1, 2006), the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the County’s denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), because there was no compelling government interest in doing so, and it therefore created a substantial burden on the group’s ability to practice its religion.
Facts
Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City (“Guru Nanak”), a non-profit organization promoting the Sikh religion, twice applied to Sutter County (“County”) for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a Sikh temple. The first proposal, in a residential-zoned area, was rejected by the County Planning Commission, on the grounds that it might create increased noise and traffic in the existing neighborhood. Guru Nanak then proposed to build a temple on a much larger parcel, in an area zoned agricultural, that did not border any residential areas. The Planning Commission approved a CUP for this proposal, on the condition that Guru Nanak agree to various mitigation measures, and Guru Nanak so agreed. However, opponents appealed this decision to the County Board of Supervisors, which reversed the Planning Commission and rejected the application, claiming that the temple would be detrimental to agricultural uses in the area, and would encourage “leapfrog development,” since it was located away from existing infrastructure.
Guru Nanak filed a lawsuit in federal district court, claiming that the County had placed a “substantial burden” on its religious exercise, and did not offer evidence of compelling interests to justify imposing such a burden. The district court agreed, and granted summary judgment for Guru Nanak. The County appealed.
Decision
The appellate court reviewed the language of RLUIPA, which prohibits governments from imposing “substantial burdens” on religious exercise, unless there exists a “compelling government interest,” and the burden is the “least restrictive means of satisfying the government interest.” RLUIPA further specifies the circumstances to which it applies, including land use regulations, which were at issue in this case.
The Court found that the County had imposed a substantial burden on Guru Nanak, because, 1) the broad reasons cited for the two denials could easily apply to all future applications by Guru Nanak, and 2) Guru Nanak readily agreed to every mitigation measure requested by the County, and was still rejected. The Court also noted that Guru Nanak, after the first CUP was rejected because of potential noise and traffic in a residential area, sought a second CUP for a location away from existing residences, and was again rejected for a seemingly conflicting reason: that it was too far from existing development. Therefore, the Court ruled, “Because the County’s actions have to a significantly great extent lessened the prospect of Guru Nanak being able to construct a temple in the future, the County has imposed a substantial burden on Guru Nanak’s religious exercise.”
Furthermore, the Court said, the County offered no evidence, much less demonstrated, that it had any compelling interest in denying the CUP. The district court’s ruling was affirmed, and the County ordered to immediately approve and grant Guru Nanak’s CUP application.
Legal Alert Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.