The Yavneh Hebrew Academy obtained a conditional special use permit (with 36 conditions) to operate a religious day school for orthodox Jewish students. As part of its religious education program, the permit allowed the school to hold indoor Sabbath prayer services that are not open to the general public. The school applied to the planning commission for permission to expand its hours of operation and the list of those allowed to participate in Sabbath prayer services. Neighbors objected, arguing that such changes would create the functional equivalent of a synagogue. The school argued that the condition restricting the types of people who could pray on the Sabbath (students and their families) had likely stemmed from concerns about traffic, parking and noise, but that orthodox Jews do not drive on the Sabbath, the worship services are always indoors so that adverse impacts would not result from expanding the list of worshippers to include families of former students, alumni, current and former board members, donors, school faculty and staff, and guest lecturers. The zoning administrator initially denied the request and Yavneh appealed, arguing that religious instruction to its students is “part of its mission” and “an essential element of Yavneh’s religious program.” The neighbors asserted that the permitted use is for a private school and not a house of worship that would require a separate condition use permit (CUP).
At the hearing, the zoning administrator stated she had contacted the city attorney about the applicability of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The planning commission voted to grant Yavneh’s appeal and neighbors filed suit, alleging, among other things, that the planning commission improperly applied RLUIPA.
The trial court denied the petition, and the appeals court agreed. With respect to the RLUIPA claim, the Court noted that “RLUIPA’s purpose, among other things, is to prevent the government from treating religious organizations in a manner that is unequal to similarly situated entities. Since Yavneh wanted to use its school for religious education, the Court said RLUIPA would be implicated. The Court further noted that prior to the modifications being challenged Yavneh could claim that the limitations based on religion were targeted to them. The Court said that by carefully modifying the conditions in the CUP in a religion-neutral manner, the commission sought to avoid imposing unconstitutional burdens. For example, the Court noted that before the modifications were made, “the restriction against the use of the Yavneh campus on Friday nights and Saturdays was designed to prohibit prayer and other conduct, which is part of religious education at the school. Yet, the record showed that other private schools in the neighborhood and the city were not subject to the same restrictions on Friday night and Saturday uses; they were permitted to have indoor athletic matches for example.” The Court concluded that the commission’s “modifications of school hours and removal of the identity restriction made the CUP consistent with the school’s educational needs without running afoul of RLUIPA.” While the Court found that the commission’s concerns over RLUIPA compliance were considered, it noted that RLUIPA was not the only basis of its consideration, and that the commission sought to fashion conditions in a religion-neutral manner to limit the use to that of a school, “while allaying potential negative impacts on the neighborhood, and avoiding the possibility of substantially burdening religious exercise.” The fact remained that the commission modified Yavneh’s CUP so as not to trigger a RLUIPA challenge,
Concerned Residents of Hancock Park v. City of Los Angeles, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8518 (10/27/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B208439.DOC
Thanks to Dwight Merriam of Robinson & Cole in Hartford, CT for sending along this case
