Laserfiche WebLink
8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 7 of 18 Page lD #:186 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 1 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />On November 29, 2021, the City issued an Administrative Citation to MW for <br />"engaging in unpermitted food distribution" and "conducting business operations <br />without a valid COO." Compl.' 79. The following day, the City held a community <br />meeting regarding its "enforcement efforts" against MW. Id. ¶¶98-104. The mayor <br />stated that MW and the needle exchange were "not in the right location," and that a <br />solution was possible only if they were "open-minded about finding relocation." Id. <br />�T103-04. His intention was "to correct what's happening here, but also prevent it from <br />happening anyplace else in the City." Id. T102. <br />MW applied for a COO in December 2021, but was denied in January 2022. <br />Compl. T12. MW reapplied in February 2022, but was denied again "on the grounds that <br />MW was engaged in food distribution activities that were allegedly not permitted in the <br />Professional district." Id. In March 2022, MW informed the City that its refusal to grant <br />a COO permitting it to provide food and beverages to poor and homeless individuals was <br />a violation of RLUIPA. Id. ¶107. On June 7, 2022, the City informed MW that it would <br />"take all appropriate action," including the "issuance of administrative fines, criminal <br />prosecution and/or civil remedies such as injunctions and penalties," if MW continued <br />operating without a COO. Id. ¶13. <br />MW administratively appealed the City's second COO denial in August 2022. <br />Compl. ¶14. Following a hearing, the administrative hearing officer concluded that the <br />City had failed to adequately "address the RLUIPA issues." Id. ' 16. MW subsequently <br />met with City officials and offered to return to its pre -pandemic practice of providing <br />food and drink indoors rather than from its garden courtyard. Id. ¶112. However, the <br />City rejected this offer. Id. ¶113. Regardless, MW reverted to its pre -pandemic <br />procedures and currently only distributes food and beverages inside its Resource Center. <br />Id. �29. Although MW informed the City in writing of this policy change, on January <br />H, 2023, the City notified MW that it would not permit MW to "provid[e] any food or <br />beverages of any kind to any clients or any other members of the public (whether rich or <br />poor), either inside or outside MW's Resource Center." Id. ¶¶31-32, 35. Accordingly, <br />6 <br />