New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas

Background

New Harvest Christian Fellowship challenged Salinas zoning decisions concerning its proposed use of the Beverly Building, which it purchased in March 2018. The building is at 344 Main Street, within a three-block Main Street restricted area. A Salinas zoning provision allowed clubs, lodges, religious assemblies, and similar assembly uses only above the ground floor of buildings facing Main Street in that area. The City said the restriction was intended to stimulate downtown commercial activity and create a pedestrian-friendly, active, and vibrant Main Street.

New Harvest operated from a rented facility at 357 Main Street under a conditional use permit and used that location for worship services and other programs. In January 2018, it applied for a zoning-code amendment and a conditional use permit to conduct worship services on the Beverly Building’s ground floor. The Planning Commission denied the applications in August 2018, and the City Council denied New Harvest’s appeal and approved that decision on November 6, 2018.

New Harvest asserted claims under two provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law governing government regulation of religious land use: the substantial-burden provision and the equal-terms provision. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which is a judgment entered without a trial when the court finds no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the outcome.

Evidentiary rulings and judicial notice

The court overruled New Harvest’s objections to declarations submitted by the City. It found that the objections were procedurally improper because they were filed separately rather than in the opposition brief, and it concluded that the challenged evidence was not material to the RLUIPA analysis. The court also overruled the City’s objections to Robert W. Burgess’s declaration, although it ruled that Burgess could not testify as an expert because New Harvest had not disclosed him by the expert-disclosure deadline. The court considered him instead as a fact witness about the availability of other properties in Salinas.

The court granted New Harvest’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 3 through 7 to Kevin Snider’s declaration, which included articles of incorporation and portions of the Salinas Zoning Code.

Substantial-burden claim

The court explained that New Harvest had to show that the zoning restriction imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise. A substantial burden must impose a significantly great restriction or difficulty. The court considered three factors: feasible alternative locations; uncertainty, delay, or expense; and New Harvest’s own actions.

The court found evidence of feasible alternatives. The City presented evidence identifying nine churches and other properties with suitable space and within or close to New Harvest’s price range. New Harvest did not counter that evidence. The court also found that New Harvest had not shown why the one presently available church property identified by its broker was infeasible. The fact that people traveling from downtown would need to make a highway U-turn was not enough to establish that the property was unsuitable.

The court further found that New Harvest had not shown substantial delay, uncertainty, or expense associated with alternative locations. Finally, the court considered evidence that New Harvest knew when it purchased the Beverly Building that ground-floor assembly uses were not allowed and that the City would oppose its effort to hold religious services there. Relying on decisions from other courts as persuasive guidance, the court treated New Harvest’s purchase with that knowledge as evidence that the claimed burden was self-imposed.

The court rejected New Harvest’s argument that its inability to use one suitable space was enough to establish a substantial burden. It concluded that New Harvest had not carried its burden of showing that the City’s actions substantially burdened its religious exercise. The court therefore denied New Harvest’s motion for summary judgment on this claim and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on the claim.

Equal-terms claim

The equal-terms provision prohibits a government from imposing land-use restrictions on a religious assembly on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly. The court first ruled that Salinas’s zoning provision did not facially violate that provision because it treated secular and religious places of assembly alike: neither could operate on the ground floor in the Main Street restricted area. The court also rejected New Harvest’s argument concerning live entertainment because the listed entertainment activities were allowed only as accessory uses to otherwise permitted principal uses, and the accessory-use provision was neutral as to religious and secular content.

For the as-applied claim, the court examined whether New Harvest was treated less favorably than secular comparators that were similarly situated under the City’s accepted zoning criteria. The court identified the City’s criteria as stimulating commercial activity and creating an active, vibrant, pedestrian-friendly Main Street.

New Harvest identified the Maya Cinema, El Rey Theater, Fox Theater, and Ariel Theatre as secular comparators. The court found that New Harvest had not shown that the Maya Cinema or Fox Theater were relevant comparators because those properties offered activities such as first-run films, weddings, concerts, comedy shows, and other events that could attract the general public. New Harvest offered no evidence that its activities drew nonmembers or positively affected commercial activity or vibrancy in the restricted area.

The court found that seating-capacity evidence did not establish that the El Rey Theater was similarly situated. Although the evidence about Ariel Theatre showed some parallels, other evidence showed that schools used the theater and that rehearsals and classes occurred there. Those activities suggested weekday visits by participants and parents, making Ariel Theatre different from New Harvest’s proposed use under the City’s criteria. The court also rejected comparisons to nursing homes, hospitals, residential-care facilities, cemeteries, and government offices because New Harvest did not show that the City had permitted those uses within the Main Street restricted area.

The court concluded that New Harvest had not established a prima facie violation of the equal-terms provision. In its conclusion, Judge Van Keulen overruled both parties’ evidentiary objections, granted New Harvest’s request for judicial notice, denied New Harvest’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.