1 10 2 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/c01946305b7c6b26a2d7cf7255a3bec0.jpg eb438edeb6f6620aa4adedeee24a37bc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Description An account of the resource Lopez and Associates (2013). Rendering of the proposed Islamic center in Lomita. [Online image]. Retrieved June 18, 2020 from https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/islamic-center-lawsuit-lomita-settled.html. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource California Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Ca_05 Location The location of the interview Lomita, CA Date 2010-2013 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The city of Lomita, California rejects a proposal by the Islamic Center of South Bay (ICSB) for an expansion of a new center on its property. The city states that the rejection is based on residents’ concerns over increased traffic and noise as well as the project’s size and fit with the neighborhood. Members of the ICSB allege anti-Islamic sentiment, and CAIR-LA files a federal lawsuit on behalf of ICSB against the city. The denial prompts a DOJ investigation and, eventually, a DOJ lawsuit under RLUIPA. Lomita and the DOJ settle the suit in 2013 along with a settlement in ICSB’s lawsuit, clearing the way for ICSB to bring a new, successful application to the city council. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 25816 Walnut St, Lomita, CA 90717 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. QMQQ+G8 Lomita, California Proposed Project Islamic center; mosque expansion Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://masjidalnoor.org/about/">Islamic Center of South Bay</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; bias-related incident Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions; following lawsuit and settlement) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. On June 8, 2009 an initial hearing was held before the City of Lomita Planning Commission for the proposed redevelopment of the Islamic Center of South Bay (ICSB). Initial specifications for the redevelopment included a proposed sanctuary consisting of 2,370 square feet, a proposed building area of 16,851 square feet, and a proposed 74 additional parking spaces. During the meeting, the architect for the project, Shakil Patel, addressed residents’ concerns about the project, including “the location and height of the mosque windows, the traffic and noise issues” and “the distance between the buildings” (Planning Commission Notes 6/8). After commissioners asked Mr. Patel questions about the project, Commissioner Dever suggested that the project be continued and that residents have an opportunity to voice their opinions about the project. Initial public reactions were not positive. Residents were primarily concerned over the additional noise and traffic that the project would create. On July 1 and August 12 of 2009, two community meetings were held so that the Islamic Center of South Bay could revise their initial project. These revisions were brought before the Planning Commission in a meeting on September 14, 2009. In this meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 in favor of recommending the project for approval. Residents continued to express their concerns about the project leading up to the city council meeting. On March 2, 2010, after a five-hour hearing, the Lomita City Council unanimously voted to reject the proposed redevelopment. Some of the project’s supporters alleged that religion played an important role in the decision. City Councilman Tim King contended that the decision was based on the structure’s location and the coding changes that would have been required (KPCC, 2010). Importantly, the rejection of the redevelopment allowed for the Islamic Center of South Bay to come back with another plan (”Lomita Stops Mosque Expansion,” KPCC, 2010). On November 18, 2011, the United States Department of Justice announced that it had begun a formal civil rights investigation over the rejection of the proposed redevelopment. Officials stated that the investigation was triggered after DOJ officials had read reports of the mosque’s denial (Green, 2011). While the DOJ investigation was still ongoing, the Islamic Center of South Bay on March 21, 2012 filed a lawsuit against the City of Lomita, seeking “damages and reimbursement for costs incurred during a planning process that has lasted more than three years” (Flaccus, 2012). To date, we have been unable to find the original lawsuit filed. On January 11, 2013, it was announced that the City of Lomita had reached a conditional settlement with the Islamic Center of South Bay. “The agreement [allowed] the Islamic Center of South Bay to reapply to complete the expansions. It also [called] for the city to process the new application promptly and to waive application fees, with a caveat that if the new application is denied again, the lawsuit may resume” (“Islamic Center Reaches Settlement,” KPCC, 2013). On March 8, 2013, the DOJ filed a complaint and agreed order against Lomita, alleging that Lomita violated RLUIPA by creating a substantial burden for ICSB community members to practice their religion in their denial of the redevelopment. The agreed order affirmed the city’s settlement with the ICSB and mandated certain record-keeping and training requirements for city officials. On September 9, 2013, the Planning Commission discussed the ICSB’s new application. After a long public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the redevelopment. On October 7, 2013, the City Council reviewed the new application, which contained changes such as a 7,000 square-foot increase in the site’s size after the purchase of a new lot and 20 more parking spaces (Green, 2013). The project was approved in the meeting by a unanimous vote. Construction was underway by 2014 and today the Islamic Center of South Bay’s redevelopment plans appear to have been completed and the site is operational. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Green, Nick. (2012, March 22). Discrimination is alleged. Religion: Islamic Center says the City Council violated federal law in rejecting its renovation plans. Daily Breeze, p. 1A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green, Nick. (2011, November 9). Planning officials capture 2 seats. Daily Breeze, p. 4A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green Staff Writer, N. (2011, November 18). Mosque rejection spurs inquiry. Lomita: Feds ask city officials why expansion of Islamic Center was blocked. Daily Breeze, p. 3A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green, Nick. (2011, October 12). 3 running for 2 council seats. Lomita: A previous challenger faces pair from planning board. Daily Breeze, p. 3A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department reaches agreement with Lomita, Calif., to protect religious exercise. (2013, February 1). Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-agreement-lomita-calif-protect-religious-exercise"> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-agreement-lomita-calif-protect-religious-exercise</a>. </li> </ul> Year Year the case began. 2010 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lomita, CA Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. CA_05, occurring in Lomita, CA, 90717 from 2010 to 2013 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA) https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/36dcbe2f6d267e27e9469ce367d4ef59.jpg 5d8cc890f67141210656fee9ff8916ba Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Description An account of the resource Cuevas, S. (2012, Aug 10). A rendering of the future Al-Nur Islamic Center in Chino [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.scpr.org/news/2012/08/10/33770/dead-pig-parts-dumped-future-chino-mosque-site-pro/">https://www.scpr.org/news/2012/08/10/33770/dead-pig-parts-dumped-future-chino-mosque-site-pro</a> . Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource California Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Ca_08 Location The location of the interview Ontario, San Bernadino County, California Date March 2010-November 2016 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 4797 w. Phillips Bl., Ontario, CA 91762 Coordinates Enter the coordinates for the location, if they are available. 34.048394, -117.68075 Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://www.alnuric.org">Al-Nur Islamic Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action The opposition to this project was extreme. The opposition called Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment filed an appeal to stop Al Nur’s permit for land use to create their mosque. After that failed, two unnamed women vandalized the house the group operates out of with pig feet. Although the police investigated, the assailants were not found. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. Local Coverage <ul><li>Petition opposes religious center - Plan calls for clinic, mortuary in county residential zone. (2010, March 27). Chino Champion (CA), p. A1, A2. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/12EF113DA5FEAF40.</li> <li>Mosque won't fit, city says. (2012, April 14). Chino Champion (CA), p. 1A. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/13E30CE5E9AC9058.</li> <li>Opponents of Phillips mosque ask court to set aside permit. (2013, June 29). Chino Hills Champion (CA), p. 10A. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1474AF7DE5BCCC10.</li> <li>Ewald, M. (2016, November 12). Residents sue over mosque permit. Chino Hills Champion (CA), p. A1. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/160AEAA010CC3390. </li> </ul> Regional Coverage <ul><li>Johnson, J. (2012, February 17). Opponents said proposed mosque is being built on too small a parcel of land. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/13CFF19EB93A7B70.</li> <li>Nisperos Staff Writer, N. (2011, March 18). Residents oppose center in neighborhood. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/13612D078969E598.</li> <li>Pig parts dumped at future Chino mosque site prompt call for federal investigation. (2012, August 10). KPCC - 89.3 FM: Web Edition Articles (Pasadena, CA). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/14C583D1B3F8C770.</li> <li>Acceptance of Inland Muslims high, despite bigoted incident. (2012, August 11). Press-Enterprise, The: Blogs (Riverside, CA). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15353D094ECA1260.</li> </ul> Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. A small Muslim community proposed and was approved to construct a 7,520 ft mosque in a 1.5-acre plot of land in Chino, California in 2011. Originally, the group proposed a 11,000 square foot Islamic Center, but because of public outrage, continued legal action against the Islamic group and financial issues, the footprint was reduced to 7,520 square feet. In the end, county officials approved the conditional use permit. However, the community continued to face legal actions from residents living in the area of the proposed Islamic Center. The Muslim community finally gave up on that project and decided to relocate. Proposed Project Al Nur Islamic group purchased 1.5-acre land in unincorporated Chino, California in 2009. Originally, the group proposed a 11,000 ft., two-story Islamic center that included, a worship space, a dining hall, multipurpose room, a free primary health and dental clinic, youth and adult counseling center, education center, library, senior center, and a mortuary service However, it was later changed to a smaller project: a mosque (7,250 sq. ft). Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications After vandalism and legal objections to the mosque, the project was approved by the Planning Commission of San Bernardino County for building on December 8th, 2011. However, it was a conditional permit that only allowed for a 7,512 square ft mosque instead of the proposed 11,000 after the size of the parcel was questioned. Current Status: Due to continuous legal action and harassment, the building for the new masjid became too difficult and the Al-Nur Islamic group was forced to give up on the Chino project and to relocate (AlnurIC.org). Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. Background on local and Muslim Community Chino, California is a city located on the southwestern side of San Bernardino County in Southern California. It was incorporated on February 28th, 1910. Since its inception, the area has had a predominately white population. Today, the city’s population is 50.25 percent white. The area is considered semi-suburban to rural. The Muslim population in the area was estimated to be as low as 0.05 percent prior to the Al-Nur Islamic group. Proposed Project Looking to expand from their rental property in Montclair, the Al Nur Islamic group purchased 1.5 acres on an unincorporated piece of land between Ontario and Chino California in 2009. The group proposed to build a 11,000 square foot Islamic center. The center was envisioned to have three building in addition to the Imam’s home on 4797 w. Phillips Bl. Ontario, CA 91762. “The property is zoned residential…” said Robert Dawson, then deputy director of the planning division of the county land-use department (Chino Champion 2010). The zoning allowed for a house of worship to be built but required a conditional use permit before any religious activities could be conducted. The group filed a letter of intent to use land for religious purposes on October 23, 2009. Rashid Ahmed, then secretary of the Al-Nur Islamic group, explained how the building wouldn’t begin immediately but when the group had raised enough money. Upon conversing with neighbors, Mr. Ahmed detailed how they were “very optimistic” about the proposed project’s presence in their neighborhood. Conflict The problem arose when residents of the Northern Chino area in which the proposed project was to be built disagreed and began a petition in March 2010 to stop the building of the Islamic Center. Ms. Siefert, a resident living in the neighborhood where the Islamic Center was proposed, started the petition and gained 100 signatures in order to present them at the county hearing on the proposed project in the future. Opposed residents spoke of their concerns of increased noise and traffic, and harsh exterior lights disturbing other neighbors. A year later in March of 2011, the complaints increased. More and more residents near the property voiced concerns over how the project would “dramatically change the quiet rural character of their neighborhood with an unwanted increase of vehicular traffic” and the impacts of project on “landscape views, construction, sewage and runoff.” Additionally, Patrick Griffin, Chino Assistant City Manager, in his report to the County Planning Department, detailed that the “scope and size” of the building project was “not consistent with the character and scale of the residential neighborhood” (Nisperos 2011). Eventually, passing the planning commission permit review screening, Al Nur was approved for a conditional use permit on December 8, 2011. In response to this decision, a group of residents near the approved structure submitted an appeal on the Planning Commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors that was seen on February 28, 2012. The County Board of Supervisors rejected the appeal and Al Nur maintained their permit. Later in April of 2012, a homeowner group went to legal action in a lawsuit on March 29, 2012, under the California Environmental Quality Act, asking the “judge to cancel county officials’ approval of the [structure] and require the completion of an environmental impact report which was approved” (Edwards 2012). The fight between the residents of Chino and Al Nur continued for 4 more years. After the event surrounding the first lawsuit, the proposed site was vandalized. Pig feet were found placed in the driveway of the site. The Council of American-Islam Relations (CAIR) intervened and pushed the U.S Department of Justice to open an investigation, but the “community did not have security cameras to catch the vehicle license plate number, therefore the detective could not arrest or bring any one to justice” as stated by the Al Nur group themselves. County officials granted the Al Nur Islamic group a “Worship Permit” that allowed them to practice in the house on the approved site. A subsequent lawsuit and repeal followed to stop the permit but both failed. Al Nur Islamic Center maintained their conditional use permit and was also granted a worship permit. Outcome After, being approved for their conditional use permit, Al Nur was allowed to start construction for the mosque. However, the group was also forced to downsize their original plan of a 11,000 sq. ft Islamic Center to a mosque. The group experienced vandalism of the site. The group later met with other religious groups after the vandalism and gained more support from the public. However, that wasn’t enough. The fight for their the Al Nur Mosque wasn’t over even then, the group had to suffer another 6 lawsuits since the initial one in 2012 (Ewald 2016, Nov 12). Current Status Public controversy and legal action against the group continued. The group made the choice to relocate because of safety concerns and dwindling attendees. The group’s website details how the group is now trying to raise money to purchase “1.3 acres including an existing 265-person capacity church, a school building, concrete parking, and 2.43 acres of vacant land” (AlnurIC.org). Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Ontario, CA Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. CA_08, occurring in Ontario, CA between March 2010 and November 2016 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource McKenzie Hann