Opinion ID: 3038212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CEQA Analysis and Injunctive Relief

Text: This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant an injunction. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 695 (9th Cir. 2003). [12] The County claims that the district court’s injunction violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq., when it ordered the County immediately to approve Guru Nanak’s CUP application. The district court did not abuse its discretion, however, because the County has already fully reviewed the environmental impact of the application without stating any deficiency. If residents had not appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, the Commission’s review of the Planning Division’s detailed environmental impact report on Guru Nanak’s application would have been final. In fact, the Planning Division attached thirty-three detailed conditions to its approval of Guru Nanak’s application—all dealing with the scrutiny standard as did RFRA, it applies the standard only to types of regulations subject to strict scrutiny in the past. See supra Part II.B. Second, RLUIPA defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). This definition of “religious exercise” is broader than the definition in RFRA. See Civil Liberties, 342 F.3d at 760. However, RLUIPA’s expanded meaning of “religious exercise” applies, as is relevant here, only to individualized assessments pursuant to land use regulations. As noted above, Congress sufficiently documented how local governments stifle religious groups’ religious exercise by denying such groups the ability to use property for religious purposes. GURU NANAK SIKH v. COUNTY OF SUTTER 8617 environmental impact of the proposed temple. Neither a Commission member nor a Board member ever disagreed with the Planning Division’s conclusion that Guru Nanak’s application, subject to several mitigation measures, complied with CEQA. The County specifically points to Guru Nanak’s future plans of expanding its congregation facilities and membership as a reason why it must further review Guru Nanak’s application for environmental impact. The California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396 (1988), held that an environmental impact report (EIR) “must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.”22 The County points to Guru Nanak’s statement in its application that this first temple is an interim use and that the group intends to build a larger temple and parking lot in the future—both “reasonably foreseeable consequences of the initial project.” Although Guru Nanak, like many religious congregations, may have tentative plans to expand in the future, the construction of new installations is not a foreseeable result of Guru Nanak’s application. Any later expansion would have to go through a new application process with a new EIR. Lucas Valley Homeowners Ass’n. v. County of Marin, 233 Cal. App. 3d 130 (1991), is analogous to the situation here. In Lucas Valley, the court stated that the County of Marin did not need 22 In Laurel Heights, the UC Regents approved a use permit for a building that was going to be vacant in the near future. 37 Cal. 3d at 396-97. The Regents undoubtedly were going to fill the already standing, vacant building with additional occupants. Id. This situation is distinct from the one at issue here, because Guru Nanak would have to construct a new building if it wanted to expand its operations. 8618 GURU NANAK SIKH v. COUNTY OF SUTTER to consider an orthodox Jewish group’s future hopes for expansion when expansion plans were not proposed for approval in the group’s application and would be subject to a future application process. Id. at 161-62. Similarly, Guru Nanak here has agreed to a capacity of seventy-five people in the building it plans to convert into a temple, and future construction would require another application process.