Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment to County in RLUIPA Case

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

 

Calvary Chapel, a non-denominational Christian church located in the “Temecula Wine Country” region of Riverside County, bought a parcel of land in the Citrus-Vineyard Zone (“C/V Zone”) in 1996. At that time, churches and other places of religious worship were permissible on approval of a public use permit, and Calvary Chapel obtained such a permit to construct a church on its property. In 1999, Riverside enacted more restrictive zoning ordinances, which removed religious assemblies from the list of permissible uses in the C/V Zone. Since that time, Calvary Chapel has operated as a legal non-conforming use. In 2009, Calvary Chapel, allegedly unaware Riverside had changed the zoning ordinance, purchased a second parcel of land – hoping to expand its church on the vacant parcel by building a larger sanctuary, a special occasion facility, an open-air wedding venue, a church administration building, and a single-family residence. Calvary Chapel was then told that it must submit a plot plan application to proceed with the expansion. Calvary Chapel submitted its plot plan, but two months later, a group called “Protect Wine Country” sued Riverside, challenging the validity of the “same in character and intensity” provision. The Superior Court entered judgment in favor of Protect Wine Country and Riverside did not appeal. As such, Calvary Chapel’s plot plan application was invalidated.

 

As to Calvary Chapel’s equal terms claim, the court found that there was no dispute that the first three factors were satisfied. Thus, Calvary Chapel’s burden was to show that Riverside’s zoning ordinance treated religious assemblies or institutions unequally compared to secular assemblies or institutions. The court found that on the face of the ordinance, secular and religious places of assembly were treated the same. Specifically, both uses were permitted in the C/V Zone only if they met the requirements of a “special occasion facility.” As the zoning ordinance as written permitted religious uses as contemplated by Calvary Chapel, the court help there was no equal terms violation.

 

Calvary Chapel next argued, for the first time on appeal, that if religious assemblies were permitted in the C/V Zone as special occasion facilities, Riverside violated RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision by “needlessly” requiring it to apply for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. The court, however, declined to consider this new nondiscrimination claim since it was not brought prior to the appeal.

 

Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, 2020 WL 547372 (9th Cir CA 2/4/2020)