948 F.3d 1172
9th Cir.2020Background
- Calvary Chapel, a church in Riverside County’s "Temecula Wine Country," purchased parcels in the Citrus-Vineyard Zone (C/V Zone) and originally operated under a public-use permit; a 1999 zoning amendment removed religious assemblies from permitted uses, leaving the church as a legal nonconforming use.
- In 2009 Calvary Chapel bought a second parcel and sought to expand (sanctuary, special-occasion facility, wedding venue, admin building); it applied for a plot plan after county rules changed but litigation and an invalidated ordinance provision prevented approval.
- Riverside developed the Wine Country Community Plan (WCCP) and left Calvary Chapel’s parcels in the C/V Zone; the county’s zoning allows a range of non‑agricultural uses in the zone as "special occasion facilities" subject to plot plan approval and certain requirements (including compensation for use).
- Calvary Chapel filed a facial RLUIPA challenge alleging (1) the zoning treats religious assemblies on less than equal terms with secular assemblies and (2) discriminatory enactment/animus in violation of RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Riverside, concluding the ordinance, on its face, treats religious and secular assemblies the same because both may be permitted as "special occasion facilities;" Calvary Chapel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the zoning ordinance violates RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision | Calvary Chapel: ordinance bars religious assemblies while permitting many secular assembly uses (wineries, inns, special events, hotels, etc.), so religion is treated worse | Riverside: the ordinance permits both religious and secular assemblies equally when they qualify as "special occasion facilities"; churches can rent/use facilities for compensation and hold services | Court: Affirmed — facially no equal-terms violation because both religious and secular assemblies are treated the same under the special-occasion-facility text and county representations |
| Whether the ordinance enactment violates RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision | Calvary Chapel: ordinance and related conduct show anti‑church animus and discriminatory process | Riverside: plaintiff’s newly articulated procedural attack (text-amendment requirement) was not raised below; no proven discriminatory intent on the ordinance facially | Court: Declined to consider the new nondiscrimination theory raised first on appeal; no facial discrimination shown and the procedural claim is forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for a prima facie RLUIPA equal-terms claim)
- Burrell v. McIlroy, 464 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006) (review of district court summary judgment is de novo)
- Snapp v. United Transp. Union, 889 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2018) (Rule 30(b)(6) testimony may be corrected or supplemented and is not dispositive of law)
- United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990) (issues not raised below generally forfeited on appeal)