28 F. Supp. 3d 1163
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Bishop Blanchet High School, a private religious school in a Seattle single-family residential zone, sought to install four 70-foot light poles for its athletic field but was required to apply for a variance because the zone’s height limit is 30 feet.
- The Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) approved the applications with extensive conditions; nearby residents (Concerned Blanchet Neighbors) appealed and the Hearing Examiner reversed, finding Bishop Blanchet could not meet the variance criterion of unusual conditions.
- Seattle’s code contains a Special Exception allowing public schools in single-family zones to exceed the 30-foot limit (up to 100 feet) upon a DPD determination and engineer’s report demonstrating minimized light/glare impacts; two public high schools in North Seattle used that process to install much taller poles.
- Bishop Blanchet sued, arguing the City’s requirement that it obtain a variance while allowing public schools to use the Special Exception violates RLUIPA’s Equal Terms provision and also asserted a Washington substantive due process claim.
- The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the facts were undisputed and the district court considered whether Bishop Blanchet was treated on less than equal terms compared to nonreligious public schools.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City treated a religious institution on less than equal terms in violation of RLUIPA | Bishop Blanchet: requiring a variance for religious school but not for public schools (Special Exception) is unequal treatment | City: differing treatment justified by an accepted zoning criterion of fostering public facilities by government agencies | Court: City violated RLUIPA; public schools and Bishop Blanchet are similarly situated under accepted zoning criteria and City failed to justify disparity |
| Whether the City’s proffered justification is an accepted zoning criterion | Bishop Blanchet: the City’s proffered justification is subjective and unrelated to objective zoning criteria for single-family zones | City: GMA and other sources support fostering public facilities as legitimate criterion | Court: Rejection — ‘‘fostering public facilities’’ not an accepted zoning criterion for the zone; relevant criteria are objective impacts (noise, light, traffic, parking, height, aesthetics) |
| Whether Bishop Blanchet is similarly situated to public schools for zoning purposes | Bishop Blanchet: comparable on objective criteria (location, field use, impacts) | City: public schools’ public nature justifies different treatment | Court: Bishop Blanchet is similarly situated; public nature alone does not distinguish under RLUIPA |
| Whether court must decide Washington substantive due process claim | Bishop Blanchet: also raised constitutional due process challenge | City/Neighbors: opposed relief | Court: Declines to reach state constitutional due process claim as RLUIPA ruling provides complete relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and burdens of proof)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (Ninth Circuit application of RLUIPA equal-terms and accepted zoning criteria)
- Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (Third Circuit regulatory-purpose test under RLUIPA)
- River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (Seventh Circuit accepted zoning criteria refinement under RLUIPA)