N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HARB OR

M ISSIONAR

Y C HUR C H C ORPOR ATION, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF SAN B UENAVENTUR A; JEFFREY LAM B E R T , in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s C om m unity De ve l opm e nt Dire c tor; M ARK

WATKINS, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C ity M ana ge r; C HER YL HEITM A

NN, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s M ay o r and pre siding C ity C ounc ilm e m

be r; ERIK NASARENKO, in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s De puty

M ay or an d C ity C ounc i l m e m

be r; NEAL ANDR

EW S, in the ir offic ia l c a

pa c i tie s a s C ity C ounc ilm e m

be rs; JAM ES L. M ONAHAN, in the ir offic ia l c a

pa c i tie s a s C ity C ounc ilm e m

be rs; C ARL E. M OREHOUSE, in the ir offic i a l c a pa c itie s a s C ity C ounc ilm e m

be rs; M IKE TR

AC Y, in the ir offic ia l c a

pa c i tie s a s C ity C ounc ilm e m

be rs; C HR ISTY W EIR , in the ir offic i a l c a

pa c i t ie s a s C ity C ounc ilm e m

be rs; DAN LONG, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C ha i r of the Pla

nning No. 14-56137

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-03730-R -VB K
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

MAR 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C om

m ission; NANC Y FR

ANC IS, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Vic e C ha ir of the Planning C om

m ission; C HR ISTOPHER B EC K, in the i r offic ia l c a pa c itie s a s Planning C om

m issione r; SC OTT B OYDSTUN, in the ir offic ia l c a pa c i tie s a s Planning C om

m issione r; LAUR

A DUNB AR , in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s a s Planning C om

m issione r; DAVID FERR IN, in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s a s Planning C om

m issione r; R ONDI GUTHRIE, in the ir offic i a l c a pa c itie s a s Planning C om

m issione r, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, KLEINFELD, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. In 2008, Ha

rbor M i ssiona

ry C hurc h (“ the C hurc h” ) c o m m e nc e d Ope ration Em bra c e to providelim ite d c are an d re ligious servic e s for hom e le ss m e n a nd
wom e n living in Ve

ntura (offic ia lly

the C ity of San B ue nave ntura ) (“ the C i ty ” ). In Ja nua ry 2013, the C ity told theC hurc h tha t it ne e d e d

to obta in a

c o nditional use pe rm it to c ontinueits hom e le s s m inistry . In Fe brua ry 2013, theC hurc h a

pplie d for
a c onditional use pe rm it, whic h the C i ty de n ie d . The C hurc h

the n file d suit 2c la im ing tha t the C ity ’ s de nia l infringe d on its re l igious pra c tic e s a nd, pe nding the la wsuit, sought a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion to ke e p ope n its ministry to the hom e le ss. The distric t c ourt de nie d the C hurc h’ s re que st, holding tha t a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion wa s not a

ppropria te be c a use the C hurc h fa c e d

no substa ntia l burde n in having to move its “ hom e le ss se rvic e s” to a nothe r loc ation, a

nd, e ve n if it did, the
c om ple t e de nia l of the pe rm it wa s the le a st re stric tive wa y to m i tiga te the C ity ’ s sa fe ty c onc e rns. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s substa ntia l burde n de te rm i nation
and its le a st re s tric tive m e ans a na ly sis, a nd re m and. B ACK G RO UND In 2004, theC hurc h purc ha se d re a l prope rty

a lre a dy pe rm itte d by

the C ity to ope ra t e both a s a

c hurc h a nd a da y c are c e n te r. In 2008, theC hurc h sta rte d Ope ra tion Em

b ra c e on this property

to providespiritua l guida nc e and othe r ba sic
ne e ds to theC ity ’ s hom e le ss m e n a nd wom e n

— o ffe ring re ligious te a c hings, worship m

usic , pray e r, c l othing, food, showe rs, c ounse l ing, a

nd othe r support. The C hurc h be lie ve s tha

t its hom e le ss m inistry

is pa rt of its re l igious duty

to se rve

“ the le a st of the s e ” am ong us (c iting M atthe w 25:34–46). The C hurc h a l so be lie ve s tha

t providing showe

rs a nd c lothing a

n d sha ring m e a ls with home l e ss m e n and wom e n—

w he n done within the

wa l ls of the C hurc h unde r a re ligious
m andate

— c onstitute

sa c re d dutie s.
3Ope ra tion Em b ra c e dre w in hom e l e ss individua ls from surrounding a

re a s, whic h prom

pte d c onc e rns from

the ne ighborhood. Re side nts re porte d inc ide nts involving thre ats, tre spa ssing, public nudity , a nd substa nc e a buse . The C hurc h took a va rie ty of ste ps to a ddre s s the se c onc e rns, inc luding e m ploy i ng a se c urity gua rd, e n forc ing a

stric t no-loite ring rule , re quiring ide ntific ation, e s c orting out of the n e ighborhood a

ny one not a d

m i tte d to C hurc h se rvic e s , c oordina t ing re gula

rly with soc ia l se rvic e a g e nc ie s, stre ngthe n ing its ne ighborhood pa trols, m a inta ining a public hotlinefor c o m

pla ints, a nd c oordina

ting its hours of ope

ration with the
e le m e nta ry sc hool. In Ja nua ry 2013, theC i ty

told theC hurc h

tha t it ne e d e d

a c onditional use pe rm it to c ontinueOpe ra tion Em bra c e . In Fe brua

ry 2013, theC hurc h a

pplie d for a pe rm it. C ity

sta ff m e m

be rs, a fte r study ing the issue , m e e ting with C hurc h offic ia ls, a

nd hosting a

public m e e t ing, issue d a

re port re c om

m e nding tha

t the C ity gran t the pe rm it subje c t to c onditions propose d by the sta ff. De spite the se re c o m m e ndations, theC ity

Pla nning C o m

m ission de nie d the C hurc h ’ s re que st for
a c onditional use pe rm it fla t -out. The C hurc h the n file d suit in the distric t c ourt c la im i ng tha t the C ity ’ s de nia l of a c o nditional use pe rm it viola te d the C hurc h’ s rights under the R e ligious La nd

4Use and Institutiona liz e d Pe rsons Ac t (“ RLUIPA” ) 1 and the First Am e ndm e nt of the U nite d State s C o nstitution. 2 The C hurc h a s ke d the c ourt to pre lim i na rily e njoin the C ity from e nforc ing re gula

tions tha t would shut down the C hurc h’ s hom e le ss m inistry , pe nding theoutc om e of the la wsuit. The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the C hurc h wa s unlike ly to suc c e e d on its RLUIPA c la im

and the re fore de nie d the pre l im ina ry injunc t ion. Thedistric t c ourt he ld tha t the C hurc h fa ile d to show tha t the de nia l of a

c onditional use pe rm it
c onstitute d a

substa ntia l burde n on its re l igious e xe rc ise be c a use the C hurc h c ould
c ontinueits tra ditiona l re ligious a c tivitie s at the c hurc h, while c onduc ting its

“ hom e le ss se rvic e s” at a

nothe r loc ation a

t a dista nc e from the ne ighborhood. The distric t c o urt a lso he ld tha t , e ve n if the burde n on the C hurc h’ s re ligious e xe rc ise
we re substa

ntia l, e xc luding Ope ra tion Em bra c e from

the ne ighborhood wa s the le a st re stric tive m e ans of a dva nc ing a c om pe lling governm e nta l inte re st in public he a lth a nd sa fe ty . 1 RLUIPA provide s tha

t a gove rnm e nt la

nd-use re gula

t ion “ that im

pose s a substa ntia l burde n on the re ligious e xe rc ise of a . . . re ligious a sse m

bly or institution”

is unla wful “ unle ss the gove rnm e nt de m onstra te s tha t im position of the burde n . . . is in furthera

nc e of a c om pe lling governm e nta l inte re st; . . . a nd is the le a st re stric tive m e ans of furthe ring tha t c om pe lling governm e nta l inte re st.” 42 U.S.C . § 2000c c (a ).

2 RLUIPA is m ore prote c tive of re ligious pra c tic e tha n the First Am e ndm e nt. Se e May w e athe rs v . N

e w land, 314 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th C i r. 2002). Ac c ordingly , we only ne e d to de te rm ine whe the r the C hurc h e sta blishe d a like lihood of suc c e ss on its R LUIPA c la im
. 5The distric t c ourt e rre d in its a na ly sis by m inim iz ing the burde n im pose d on the C hurc h’ s fre e e xe rc ise of re ligion. The distric t c ourt a lso e rre d in fa i ling to prope rly c onside r the c onditions re c om m e nde d by

the C ity ’ s sta ff whe n it de te rm i ne d tha

t a c om ple te de n ia l of the c onditional use pe rm it wa s the le a st
re stric tive m e ans to a c hie ve the C ity ’ s c om pe lling intere st in publicsa fe ty . ANAL YSIS This c ourt ha s jurisdic t ion ove r the C hurc h’ s inte rloc utory a ppe a l from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1292(a)(1). W e re vie w a distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision re ga

rding a pre lim i na

ry injunc tion for a

buse of disc re t ion. Bay Are a Addic tion Re

se arc h & Tre atme nt, Inc . v . C ity of Antioc h , 179 F.3d 725, 730 (9th C ir. 1999). A pa rty se e k i ng a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion m

ust e sta blish tha t: (1) it is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits, (2) it is like ly to suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm in the a bse nc e of pre l im ina ry re l ie f, (3) the ba la

nc e of e quitie s tips in its fa vor, a nd (4) a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion is in the

public inte re st. W

inte r v . N a t. Re s. De f. C o unc i l, Inc
. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 1. Lik e lihood of Suc c e

ss on the Me rits To suc c e e d on a

RLUIPA c l a im , “ t

he pla intiff m

u st de m o nstra

te tha t a gove rnm e nt a c t i on ha s im p ose d a substa ntia l burde n on the pla intiff’ s re l igious
6e xe rc ise .” Int’l C hurc h of the

Foursquare

Gospe l v . C

ity of San Le andro , 673 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th C ir. 2011); se e 42 U.S.C . § 2000c c (a )(1). Onc e the pla intiff ha s shown a substa ntia l burde n, the gove rnm e nt m ust show tha

t its a c tion wa s “ the le a st re stric tive m e ans of furthe ring [a ] c o m pe lling governm e nta l inte re s t.” 42 U.S.C . § 2000c c (a )(1)(B ).
a . Substantial Burde

n The C ity ’ s de nia l of the c onditional use pe rm it pre ve nts theC hurc h from
c onduc ting its home le ss m inistry , a n inte gra l pa

rt of its re l igion, without suffe ring substa ntia l de la y , unc e rta inty , a

nd e xpe nse . The re fore , the distric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm i ning tha

t the C hurc h’ s re ligious e xe rc ise wa s not substa ntia lly burde ne d by de nia l of a

c onditional use pe rm it. In a de c la ra tion, thepa stor of theC hurc h, Sam Ga lluc c i, c i te s to theB ible at M atthe w 25:34–46 a s one of the sourc e s for the C hurc h ’ s be lie f that its hom e le ss m inistry is pa rt of its re ligious duty

to fe e d the hungry and c l othe the nake d. Ga lluc c i a lso c ite s to them othe r C hurc h’ s position pa pe rs, whic h provide tha

t the C hurc h should e xe rc ise “ C hristia n c om p a ssion” towa

rds the oppre sse d, poor, a nd hungry . The C hurc h a sse rts tha t its re ligion c a lls for it “to provide for both spiritua l a nd te m pora l ne e d s toge the r.” The distric t c ourt e rre d by que stioning the
va lidity of the C hurc h’ s re ligious be lie fs a n d by de te rm ining tha

t its hom e le ss
7m inistry

c ould be divide d pie c e m e a l whe n the C hurc h insiste d on the im porta nc e of ke e ping its home l e ss m inistry a s a whole at the sa

m e loc ation. S

e e Int’l C hurc h of the Foursquare

Gospe l , 673 F.3d a

t 1069 (“ [W ] h ile a

c ourt c a n arbite r the sinc e rity of a n individual’ s re ligious be lie fs, c ourts should not inquire into thetruth or fa l sity of sta

te d re l igious be lie fs.” (c iting Unite d State s v . Ballard

, 322 U.S. 78, 86–87 (1944)). Furthe r, the C ity ’ s de nia l of a c onditional use pe rm it pre ve n ts the C hurc h from c onduc ting its home le ss m inistry at its c urre nt loc ation. C urre ntly , if the C hurc h wishe s to c o nduc t its hom e le ss m inistry

— a m inistry the C hurc h be l ie ve s to be an inte gra l pa

rt of its re ligious e xe rc ise

— the C hurc h m

u st re loc ate . In a ddition to se lling its curre nt prope rty , the C hurc h would ha ve to ra i se an e stim ate d $1.4
m illion to re l o c ate , a

n e xpe nse the C ity

doe s not dispute . The substa ntia l c ost
a ssoc iate d with re l oc ating thesite of the C hurc h de m onstra

te s tha t the de nia l of the
c onditional use pe rm i t substa n t ia lly burde n s the C hurc h’ s re ligious e xe rc i se . Se e id. at 1068 (“ [W ] he n the re l igious institution ha s no re a dy a lte rnative s, or whe re the a lte rnat ive s re q

uire substa

ntia l de la y , unc e rta inty , a

nd e xpe nse , a

c om ple te de nia l of the [re ligious institution’ s] a pplic ation mi ght be indic ative of a substa ntia l burde n .” (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quota tion omitte d)). b. Le ast Re

stric tiv e Me ans
8B e c a

use the C hurc h ha s shown a substa ntia l burde n, the C ity

m ust show tha

t it e m ploy e d the le a st re stric tive m e ans a va ila ble to furthe r a

c om pe lling gove rnm e nta l inte re st. Id. at 1066. Thedistric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t the C ity ha d a c om pe lling intere st in prom oting public sa fe ty and in pre ve nting c rim e . Se e Sc h all v . Martin , 467 U.S. 253, 264 (1984) (holding tha t prote c ting the
c om m unity from c rim e is a

c om pe lling intere st). B ut the distric t c ourt fa ile d to
a pply the prope r ana ly sis whe n it de te rm i ne d tha t the C ity use d the le a st re stric tive
m e ans to a c hie ve this goa l. At the C ity ’ s sugge stion, theC hurc h a pplie d for a c onditional use pe rm it to
c ontinueits hom e l e ss m inistry
. The a p plic ation de t a ile d

a wide va rie ty of
m e a sure s the C hurc h ha d i m p le m e nte d to a ddre ss the c onc e rns of its ne i ghbors. The C ity ’ s sta ff c ha

rge d with a sse ssing theC hurc h’ s a pplic ation re c om

m e nde d tha

t the u se pe rm it be a

pprove d , subje c t to a dditional c o nditions to furthe r m itiga te
som e of the outre a c h

progra m ’ s im pa c ts on theloc a l c o m

m unity
. The C ity
c onc e de s tha

t it c onside re d suc h a

c onditional use pe rm it a s a pote ntia lly

le ss re stric tive wa

y to a c hie ve the C ity ’ s inte re s ts. Though the re c ord is m ixe d,
e vide nc e indic ate s tha

t im p l e m e nting the se c onditions m ight ha ve a c hie ve d the C ity ’ s he a lth a

nd sa fe ty inte re sts, a

nd tha t the C hurc h wa s pe rha

p s willing to
c om ply with som e of the sugge ste d c onditions. Ne ve rthe l e ss, the distric t c ourt
9fa ile d to givea p propria te c onside ration to the

via bility of suc h a c onditional use pe rm it whe n, in a single se nte nc e , it c o nc lude d sum m arily tha t Ope ration Em

bra c e wa s “ so inc om

patible ” with thene ighborhood a nd so de trim e nta l to publicsa fe ty that outright denia l wa s the C i ty ’ s only option. The distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion whe n it c onc lude d , without a na ly sis, that a c om ple te de nia l o f the c onditional use pe rm it wa s the le a st re stric tive m e ans by whic h the C ity

c ould furthe r its c om

pe lling intere st in publicsa fe ty . On
re m and, the distric t c ourt should ma ke fa c tua l findings, a fte r suc h proc e e dings a s m ay be ne c e ssa

ry , a bout wha t c onditions, if a

ny , the C hurc h would or would not
c om ply with if theC ity

ha d grante d a c onditional use pe rm it. The c o urt should
a lso de ta i l why

the c onditional use pe rm i t re c om m e n de d by

the C ity ’ s sta ff would or would not suffic ie n t ly

prote c t the ne i ghborhood from any ne gative e ffe c ts shown to bethe re sult of theC hurc h’ s m inistry to the hom e le ss. CO NCL USIO N For the a bove re a s ons, we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the pre l im ina ry injunc tion a

nd re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with the vie w s he re in e xpre sse d
. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 0