GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY OF YUBA CITY V. COUNTY OF SUTTER 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY OF YUBA CITY V. COUNTY OF SUTTER

456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether the County (D) imposed a substantial burden on Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City's (P) religious exercise under RLUIPA

FACTS: Guru Nanak (P) is a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the teachings and practices of the Sikh religion. P attempted to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) for the construction of a Sikh temple on its 1.89-acre property on Grove Road in Yuba City. The property was in an area designated for low-density residential use (R-1), intended mainly for large lot single family residences; churches and temples are only conditionally permitted in R-1 districts, through issuance of a CUP. D's Planning Division issued a report recommending that it grant a CUP for the Grove Road property. At a public meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the CUP. The denial was based on citizens' voiced fears that the resulting noise and traffic would interfere with the existing neighborhood. P then began searching for a different parcel of property for the proposed temple. P acquired a 28.79-acre parcel in an unincorporated area of the County to build a temple there. It was zoned 'AG' (general agricultural district). Churches and temples are only conditionally permitted in AG districts, through issuance of a CUP. Another Sikh temple already exists less than a mile southeast from the proposed temple's parcel. The Planning Commission held a public meeting. Various potential neighbors spoke against the proposed temple, complaining mainly that the temple would increase traffic and noise, interfere with the agricultural use of their land, and lower property values. The Commission approved the application 4-3. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the appeals. Several people complained that the initial plan for a seventy-five-person temple was only a starting point for more ambitious facilities and this piece-meal approval process violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board of Supervisors unanimously reversed the Planning Commission's approval and denied P's application based on the 'right to farm': the property had been agricultural and should remain so. The district court granted summary judgment for P because it concluded D substantially burdened P's religious exercise, and that the County did not proffer evidence of compelling interests to justify such burden. The court also found that Congress did not overstep its constitutional bounds when enacting RLUIPA because the statute targets documented religious discrimination. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner