20 - Laserfiche WebLink

City Planning Commission Members City of Pleasanton, CA. April 16, 2018 Page 6 the government must show that it has a compelling interest in achieving that interest through the particular restriction at issue. 1 Thus, based on the record, the testimony at the Planning Commission's public hearing, and the sound studies, it is plain the City has no compelling interest to justify outright denying the Church's ability to use the Property for religious purposes. Finally, even if the City could show its purported interest is compelling, it must also show it employed the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(B). In other words,the City must show its interests could not have been achieved by narrower action that burdens the Chabad to a lesser degree. Elsinore Chr. Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2003). In denying Chabad's CUP request, the Planning Commission would be employing the most restrictive means possible to further its interests. There is simply no way the City can show the outright ban on using the Property for religious purposes constitutes the least restrictive means of the City furthering its interests. In sum, there is no genuine issue of material fact that a denial of the Conditional Use Permit would result in a violation of RLUIPA's Substantial Burden Clause. If you would like to learn more about the land use portion of RLUIPA, please feel free to order Litigating Religious Land Use Matters, Second Edition through Amazon or the American Bar Association websites. This book is the only treatise on the subject and the sole authority on the issue. I took great care evaluating every single case that courts have issued opinions on with respect to the land use portion of RLUIPA when writing it. 1 write this letter not as a threat but simply as concerns raised by my client in this matter. A denial would result in costly and lengthy litigation, which, I am certain both of us would like to avoid. I have been working in this area of the law for over a decade and have taken similar cases to trial successfully. Just last summer, we prevailed in favor of a Chabad in Northwest Connecticut in a similar case. We would like to avoid conflict and look forward to an amicable resolution of this case. Naturally, should you have any questions concerning this matter,please do not hesitate to contact me. I remain, Very truly yours, DALTON& TOMICH PLC /s/ Daniel P. Dalton DPD/omo cc: Client 1 U.S.D.O.J Policy Statement on the Land-Use Provisions of RLUIPA at 6-7, accessible at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/rluipa_q_a_9-22-10_0.pdf.