Spirit of Aloha Temple v. Cnty. of Maui

Citation: 322 F. Supp. 3d 1051Docket: CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM/RLP

Court: District Court, D. Hawaii; July 20, 2018; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Fredrick R. Honig purchased agricultural land on Maui and subsequently leased it to Spirit of Aloha Temple, which applied for a Special Use Permit to construct a church and conduct religious events—activities prohibited in the agricultural zone without such a permit. After the permit was denied, Honig and the Temple filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination, with multiple counts against the County of Maui pending adjudication. Both Plaintiffs and the County of Maui filed motions for summary judgment, which were denied.

Honig is associated with Well Being International Inc., founded in 1993 to promote peace and health through various practices. He purchased the property in Haiku, Hawaii, knowing its agricultural and conservation designations, and later transferred it to a revocable living trust. Honig has also applied for several trade names related to wedding services on behalf of Well Being International, indicating a focus on wedding ceremonies, which led to over 500 weddings being conducted on his property between 1996 and 2015. In 2005, he signed a lease for the property to Well Being International, stipulating that its use must comply with agricultural zoning and Maui County ordinances. The property was owned by the Trustee of his revocable trust at the time of the lease.

In September 2007, Spirit of Aloha Temple, Inc. was incorporated with Honig as its Senior Minister, practicing "Integral Yoga," which combines various yoga branches into a holistic experience of Unitive Consciousness. The County of Maui does not dispute the validity or sincerity of Honig's religious beliefs but questions the religious nature of certain proposed activities, such as a wedding business and helicopter flights. The County perceives the high volume of weddings on the property as indicative of a commercial operation rather than a church function. Testimonies indicate that there are no regular congregations and that weddings are not essential to Integral Yoga.

On October 12, 2007, Spirit of Aloha Temple applied for a Special Use Permit for church-related activities, including a bed and breakfast and weddings, while initially claiming the property was a "Botanical Garden, Agriculture." The application was amended on June 30, 2008, to include regular church services and programs. However, it was noted that the property was leased to Well Being International at the time of the original application. The County sent the application for agency comment on August 28, 2008, and on March 30, 2010, the Maui Planning Commission denied the permit, citing violations of the Maui County Code regarding the proposed heliport and lack of permits for existing structures.

On May 17, 2010, Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of this denial, arguing it violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. They proposed amending the application to include only church activities. In December 2011, Honig, as Trustee of The Frederick R. Honig Revocable Living Trust, leased the property to Spirit of Aloha Temple for $5,000 per month until December 1, 2019, specifying its use as a Botanical Garden in compliance with agricultural zoning laws. Honig expressed that no other properties were considered for leasing, emphasizing the sacredness of the site.

The property is deemed sacred by Honig and the Spirit of Aloha Temple, with its spiritual significance increasing over 23 years due to various religious activities, including services, weddings, baptisms, and spiritual classes. In 1997, Sri Swami Satchidananda blessed the property. Honig asserts that the Plaintiffs lack alternative properties for their religious practices. In September 2012, the County of Maui issued three violation notices to Honig for unauthorized building, illegal transient vacation rentals, and conducting unpermitted commercial weddings, which were later settled. On November 21, 2012, the Spirit of Aloha Temple submitted a second Special Use Permit application for church activities, including weekly services and cultural events. The Maui Planning Department recommended approval of the application, noting that the proposed use, although not allowed in a state agricultural district, could qualify as an "unusual and reasonable use" under Hawaii Revised Statutes. The staff report confirmed that the proposed activities would not negatively impact surrounding properties or place an unreasonable burden on public services. Conditions for the Special Use Permit included limits on attendance and frequency for various events: classrooms and church services capped at 24 attendees, with a maximum of one service per week; church-related events limited to 48 per year, with specific restrictions on participant numbers and frequency; and the requirement for shuttles for larger events. Events must occur between 10 AM and 8 PM.

The Maui Planning Commission reviewed the 2012 Special Use Permit application, considering both support and opposition. Key concerns included:

1. **Traffic and Safety**: Jessica Caudill highlighted potential traffic increases on Haumana Road, which is narrow and presents safety risks for pedestrians and children due to strangers in the area. 
2. **Unpermitted Activities**: Antonio Piazza noted that the Plaintiffs had allegedly been conducting unpermitted commercial wedding operations, exacerbating traffic and safety issues related to alcohol consumption at events.
3. **Alcohol-Related Risks**: Nancy Gilgoff pointed out the dangers associated with serving alcohol, which could lead to more traffic incidents.
4. **Neighborhood Impact**: Stephanie Gilgoff raised concerns about overall traffic, safety, and the disturbance to the quiet neighborhood.
5. **Historical Issues**: William Knowlton recalled previous illegal commercial activities, such as cliffside weddings that obstructed ocean access.
6. **Zoning Compliance**: Daniel Mizner argued that the proposed activities conflicted with agricultural zoning and raised additional safety concerns about the road’s limited width.

Support for the permit came from Lani Starr, while neighbor Robbie Naish reported frequent low-speed accidents on Haumana Road. The Maui Police Department, while not opposing the permit, expressed concerns regarding the road's insufficient width for emergency access and recommended improvements like road widening and street lighting. The Historic Preservation Division indicated that its approval was necessary for any proposed activities. The Department of Health noted that the temple would need to meet public water system requirements if attendance exceeded certain thresholds, and emphasized the need for water quality testing. The Office of Planning reiterated that agricultural district lands should primarily support agricultural uses.

The proposal for non-agricultural uses on the property raises concerns about increased traffic, potentially impacting existing botanical garden activities due to more profitable business uses, such as schools and weddings. The Maui Planning Commission previously denied the 2012 application, citing roadway safety and health concerns. In response, Honig requested a reconsideration, leading the Spirit of Aloha Temple to amend its permit application. The Commission vacated its earlier decision but subsequently denied the application again, stating that approved uses would increase vehicular traffic on the narrow, winding Haumana Road, which poses safety risks for pedestrians, including children.

The Commission emphasized the compelling government interest in protecting public health and safety, noting that no less restrictive means were available to ensure safety while allowing the proposed uses. Additionally, it referenced section 205-6 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, which permits "unusual and reasonable uses" in agricultural areas, and highlighted guidelines from Hawaii Administrative Rules that assess the impact on surrounding properties and public services. The Commission concluded that the proposed uses would adversely affect surrounding properties and increase the burden on local agencies responsible for infrastructure and safety services.

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA), while the government cannot impose regulations that substantially burden religious exercises without demonstrating a compelling interest, the Commission found that protecting public safety on Haumana Road constituted such an interest. The road's inadequate width and design further supported the Commission's decision against the proposal.

The Commission identified significant public health and safety concerns due to anticipated traffic increases from the proposed application, which could create hazardous conditions for drivers and pedestrians, particularly children accessing a nearby bus stop. The potential for accidents would be exacerbated by inclement weather. The Commission concluded that these issues could not be mitigated through permit conditions or use restrictions, resulting in the denial of the application on April 8, 2014. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii, upheld this decision on November 17, 2016, finding no clear error in the Commission's factual findings or legal conclusions, and determined that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

The court acknowledged the Commission's ample evidence regarding traffic and safety concerns, supported by public input. Additionally, no appeal was filed against the circuit court's ruling, and the matter is now final. Spirit of Aloha Temple contended that the Commission had treated other applicants more favorably, citing approved permits for other venues with wider access roads. Comparatively, Haumana Road, the access to the proposed site, averages 15 feet in width and narrows to 10 feet, raising additional safety concerns. The summary judgment standard under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the movant demonstrates no genuine dispute over material facts, supported by appropriate evidence from the record.

Summary judgment aims to eliminate unsupported claims and defenses. It must be granted to a party that cannot provide facts essential for their case at trial. The moving party, often the defendant, bears the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion. They must point out materials demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact. If successful, the nonmoving party must present specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying on mere allegations. A minimal amount of evidence is insufficient; there must be enough to create reasonable doubt for a fact-finder to side with the plaintiffs. The court must view all evidence favorably for the nonmoving party, resolving conflicting evidence in their favor.

In the analysis, the court identifies unresolved factual questions that prevent the application of legal tests, leading to the denial of both summary judgment motions. The court expresses concern regarding the effect of a state-court judgment, particularly about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which it finds inapplicable since the action was filed before the state court's ruling. However, the court considers whether res judicata or collateral estoppel should apply, as these doctrines prevent relitigating claims or issues decided in earlier actions with a final judgment on the merits.

The County of Maui invoked potential res judicata or collateral estoppel, asserting that Hawaii's circuit court had previously ruled that the denial of a permit was not arbitrary and that the compelling interest test was satisfied. However, the court clarified that the County cannot succeed merely by mentioning these legal doctrines without proper legal analysis or factual application. The Maui Planning Commission had denied a Special Use Permit for "CHURCH ACTIVITIES," finding no violation of RLUIPA. The circuit court upheld this decision, stating there was no legal error or abuse of discretion. The current court cannot fully assess the state-court decision's implications without clarity on whether the claims or issues could have been raised in that appeal. Consequently, the motions regarding this matter are denied.

Regarding Count I, which alleges a violation of RLUIPA due to the substantial burden on the religious exercise of Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple, both parties sought summary judgment. The court denied these motions due to concerns about the state court's decision and the presence of unresolved factual questions. Under RLUIPA, a government cannot impose substantial burdens on religious exercise unless it demonstrates that such imposition serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The Ninth Circuit requires a two-step analysis: first, the plaintiff must show that government action significantly burdens their religious exercise, and second, the government must prove that its actions were the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest. A substantial burden is defined as an oppressive restriction that significantly impedes religious exercise, not merely an inconvenience.

A substantial burden arises when a governmental authority significantly pressures an individual to alter their behavior and violate their beliefs. In the case of Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, the Ninth Circuit addressed a RLUIPA substantial burden challenge, concluding that the denial of a permit for temple construction substantially burdened the plaintiff's religious exercise. Initially, the plaintiff sought a conditional use permit for a temple on residential land, which was recommended for approval with conditions but ultimately denied due to concerns over noise and traffic. The plaintiff then applied for a permit on agricultural land, agreeing to various mitigation measures, but the planning commission's approval was reversed by the Board of Supervisors, who cited concerns about maintaining agricultural use and orderly growth.

The court invalidated the permit denial, affirming that the County had imposed a substantial burden on the Guru Nanak Sikh Society. The Ninth Circuit noted it was not determining whether the denial of a land use entitlement inherently constitutes a substantial burden, but found that two factors indicated a significant burden: the County's broad reasoning could apply to future applications, and the County dismissed the plaintiff's compliance with suggested conditions without adequate justification.

Similarly, Spirit of Aloha Temple argued that the denial of its Special Use Permit for a church on agricultural land imposed a substantial burden, as it faced significant restrictions and pressures to modify its behavior, including delays and increased costs. However, the court found that factual questions prevent a conclusion on whether the denial constitutes a substantial burden under RLUIPA, noting that other appellate courts have ruled a plaintiff's own actions can affect substantial burden analysis. In Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, the Sixth Circuit held that when a plaintiff creates a burden for themselves, the government may not be liable for a RLUIPA violation.

An institutional plaintiff that acquires land without a reasonable expectation of using it for religious purposes faces an insubstantial burden when land-use regulations are enforced. The Fourth and Seventh Circuits have ruled similarly, asserting that if a plaintiff knows a religious institution is not a permissible use of the property, any burden is self-imposed. For instance, in *Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News*, the court determined that a religious group could not reasonably expect a variance for building a church on property where such use was not allowed. In *Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook*, the court ruled that the plaintiff was not substantially burdened after being informed that its special-use application would be denied before purchasing property in an industrial zone for a church.

The Spirit of Aloha Temple, which leased property knowing it was zoned for agricultural use, may have had an unreasonable expectation of obtaining a Special Use Permit after its initial application was denied. The court noted that whether this expectation was reasonable or if the Temple created its own burden are factual questions not resolvable on the current record. Consequently, the court refrains from ruling on whether the County of Maui meets the strict scrutiny test concerning the denial of the permit, although the County argues it had a compelling interest in public health and safety and used the least restrictive means.

Questions remain about whether the County employed the least restrictive means in denying the permit, with suggestions from a declarant indicating that modifications could have mitigated potential issues. Thus, the court denies summary judgment for Count I.

Regarding Counts II and VII, which involve allegations of religious discrimination under RLUIPA and violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the defendants seek summary judgment. Count II claims a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2), which prohibits discriminatory land use regulations based on religion, while Count VII invokes the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, requiring equal treatment for similarly situated individuals.

Constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allow individuals to seek redress for rights infringements by state actors. The claims involve allegations of religious discrimination against Spirit of Aloha Temple, which was denied a Special Use Permit by the County of Maui, unlike secular entities such as Ali'i Kula Lavender Farm and Hale Akua Garden Farm Retreat Center, which were granted permits for nonagricultural activities. The court found that the County of Maui failed to provide sufficient evidence to eliminate the possibility of discrimination against Spirit of Aloha Temple, leading to a denial of the County's motion for summary judgment regarding these claims. 

Count IV addresses the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1), which prohibits unequal treatment of religious institutions in land use regulations. Both parties seek summary judgment, and the court identifies factual disputes regarding whether Spirit of Aloha Temple was treated less favorably than nonreligious organizations. The County’s justification for denying the permit was based on traffic concerns, but the court noted that this does not preclude the possibility of discriminatory motives.

Ali'i Kula Lavender Farm and Hale Akua Garden Farm Retreat Center have access roads that are generally wider than Haumana Road, which averages about 15 feet wide and narrows to 10 feet in many areas, making it difficult for two cars to pass. The road to Ali'i Kula Lavender Farm may be between 12 to 20 feet wide, while the road to Hale Akua Garden Farm is approximately 20 feet wide, with some narrower sections. This variance in road widths raises questions about whether they are sufficiently similar to infer religious discrimination in legal terms. Consequently, the court denies summary judgment for Count IV.

Count V claims that the County of Maui's denial of a Special Use Permit to Spirit of Aloha Temple constitutes unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The First Amendment prohibits laws that abridge freedoms of speech and press. The court references Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, which established that licensing laws imposing prior restraint without clear standards are unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that regulations granting excessive discretion to government officials over expressive activities are also unconstitutional. Permit requirements must be guided by specific and objective standards to prevent discriminatory enforcement. The right to establish a place of worship is fundamental to the free exercise of religion, as recognized by the Ninth Circuit, underscoring the necessity of adequate physical spaces for religious institutions.

The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged a First Amendment claim regarding prior restraint, where a tattoo parlor argued that a city had excessive discretion in granting conditional use permits (Real v. City of Long Beach, 852 F.3d 929, 935). It further stated that permitting schemes can face facial challenges if they significantly threaten protected speech or conduct (Epona, 876 F.3d at 1221). Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 205-4.5(a), agricultural district property uses do not include churches or wedding operations. However, § 205-4.5(b) prohibits unpermitted uses, with exceptions for Special Use Permits as per § 205-6. The Maui Planning Commission evaluates such applications according to Maui County Code § 19.30A.060.A.9, which allows churches in agricultural districts if a special use permit is obtained. The commission must ensure compliance with guidelines in § 15-15-95 of the state land use commission rules.

Plaintiffs claim that subsections 15-15-95(c)(2) and (3) grant the Maui Planning Commission excessive discretion, as they outline criteria for unusual and reasonable uses without clear limitations. The court notes that neither party has established entitlement to judgment regarding Count V and expresses concern about the implications of a state court ruling affirming the commission's denial of the permit, which found no abuse of discretion in the commission's decision.

The Commission's decision is upheld as neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion, and no appeal was filed. Plaintiffs' claim that the Maui Planning Commission exercised unchecked discretion may have been litigable in state court, where the issue of discretion abuse was examined. Due to insufficient discussion of the state court's administrative appeal process in the parties' briefs, the court is unable to determine the preclusive effect of the state court judgment on Count V, leading to the denial of summary judgment for Count V and reserving it for future proceedings regarding res judicata, collateral estoppel, and potential waiver of those doctrines. The court acknowledges Plaintiffs' intent to preserve their prior restraint argument but cannot ascertain its relevance without further briefing on the state court ruling's implications for Count V.

Additionally, under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice must be filed regarding the constitutional challenge of a state statute. Although Plaintiffs are contesting an administrative rule from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, the court requires them to submit a Notice of Constitutional Question detailing the issue raised about the administrative rule and serve it, along with the Complaint and the order, on the Hawaii attorney general.

Count VI alleges that the County of Maui is infringing on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by imposing a substantial burden on their religious exercise through discriminatory practices. The Free Exercise Clause, applicable to states via the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws that inhibit religious practice unless they are neutral and generally applicable. The County asserts that the relevant provisions of the Maui County Code and Hawaii Administrative Rules are indeed neutral and of general applicability.

The County of Maui contends that the compelling interest test is not necessary in this case, while the Plaintiffs reference Hale O Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Commission to argue that such a test must be applied when there is an individualized exemption from general requirements. However, the court is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent from San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, which establishes that a law affecting the free exercise of religion is only subject to strict scrutiny if it is not neutral or generally applicable. If the law is neutral and generally applicable, it may only face rational basis scrutiny, despite any incidental burden on religion. 

The court notes that neither party has sufficiently met the burden required for summary judgment, particularly regarding the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in relation to the Free Exercise of Religion claim. The County's motion for summary judgment on Counts VII and VIII lacks a meaningful discussion of relevant Hawaii constitutional provisions, while Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Count VII only and argue for strict scrutiny. Due to insufficient arguments and failure to address material facts, both parties' motions for summary judgment are denied. The court also clarifies that there is no Count III in the Complaint and acknowledges that the Haumana Road property has two designations but is acknowledged as the same property.