City Council persistence over rezoning the former Saint Louise
Hospital has paid off in the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
when the court found, 3-0, in the city
’s favor. The decision was rendered by a panel of three that
included Judges William C. Canby, Jr., Andrew J. Kleinfeld and
Johnnie B. Rawlinson.
City Council persistence over rezoning the former Saint Louise Hospital has paid off in the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when the court found, 3-0, in the city’s favor. The decision was rendered by a panel of three that included Judges William C. Canby, Jr., Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Johnnie B. Rawlinson.
San Jose Christian College had wanted to buy the facility on Cochrane Road for a new campus but the council, wanting to retain the building for medical services, refused the college’s request for the necessary rezoning.
The college sued, lost in court, appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and, on March 8, lost again.
However, on Thursday, the college – also persistent – sent a request to the court, asking for a rehearing before a panel of 11 judges. If that request is honored and if the college loses again, the only remaining recourse is to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Attorney John Dodd, who argued the college’s case, said they just might do.
City Attorney Helene Leichter was pleased on Wednesday, thinking the case was over.
“It was a slam-dunk and I am thrilled,” Leichter said.
City Manager Ed Tewes, who earlier in the week had said he was pleased with the court’s decision, was less so with the college’s.
“I am disappointed that plaintiffs in this case, who clearly have larger ideological issues in mind, have chosen to continue the challenge in face of a very strongly worded opinion, unanimously rendered, that the city acted property,” said Tewes.
The issue is indeed bigger than the 65-year-old college wanting the old hospital building. It has since bought property in Rocklin, east of Sacramento, and intends to open under the name of William Jessup University for the fall semester. The college remains open in San Jose.
The issue is the freedom of religious institutions to act as they wish under normal circumstances without governmental interference. The college claimed the city was in violation of RLUIPA (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000).
RLUIPA declares that a governing body cannot impose a burden on a person, group or institution that would keep them from practicing their normal religious activities. The court uses this qualification as a test for RLUIPA qualification.
The law, which was signed by then-President Bill Clinton in September 2000, was a replacement for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.
The city based its denial on the its preference to retain the building for its intended purpose and on SJCC’s failure to comply with the CEQA-based re-zoning requirements. CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act. There was, the suit said, a discrepancy between the plans submitted to the city and a description of the campus on the college’s website.
“The college clearly failed to make a complete application,” said Leichter. “The court said they had to do everything anyone else would do, including an environmental impact report.”
The loss of a dedicated building suitable for the medical services council hoped to lure back to town was considered too hard a blow to endure. Most physicians and medical services had left town when the hospital moved to Gilroy in 1999.
Dodd, the college’s attorney, disagreed with the court.
“The court’s decision was flawed several respects,” Dodd said. “The (appeal’s) court is required to construe the facts in favor of whoever lost (the college) but they didn’t do that. Instead they accepted the city’s version of the facts. The big problem is that the city said the college had to submit more detailed plans and those (on the website) were dreams for way off in the future. You don’t have to submit plans for dreams.”
A 3-0 decision, Leichter said, means the full court is less likely to grant a rehearing.
The Pacific Justice Institute is representing the college free of charge; the Institute is an organization that litigates “religious liberty issues”. Rutan and Tucker is representing the City of Morgan Hill.
“We have made a commitment to carry this through as far as we need to, including the U.S. Supreme Court,” Dacus said in September when the college filed the RLUIPA lawsuit. “I don’t know how many millions of dollars the city of Morgan Hill has to spend, but this will be a very, very costly battle on their end.”
“The Pacific Justice group may think this is a good test case for them,” Leichter said. “But we did not cross the college’s first amendment rights of speech and religion.”
The city has spent $200,000 on this lawsuit to date, according to Leichter. A further hearing and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, she said, would cost another $50,000 to $75,000. Tewes said he did not know if the college would be made to pay the city’s court costs if the college ultimately lost.
