Opinion ID: 163795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The City's Reasons for Denying SP-149 and SP-150

Text: 69 Prior to conducting our substantial-evidence review, we must address the parties' dispute with respect to the reasons undergirding the City Council's two denials. Limiting its consideration to the transcripts of the City Council's voice votes, U.S. Cellular argues that the City Council denied SP-149 solely on the basis of two findings: (1) SP-149's failure to comply with the Zoning Ordinance's 120-percent setback requirement; and (2) the availability of alternative sites. Similarly, with respect to SP-150, U.S. Cellular argues that City Council premised its denial on (1) the availability of alternative sites, and (2) the existence of towers suitable for co-location. 70 The City, on the other hand, argues that we should look to its written denials of SP-149 and SP-150, sent to U.S. Cellular on July 17, 2001, and July 20, 2001, respectively, both of which set forth numerous reasons not contained in the voice-vote portions of the City Council meeting transcripts. 71 In advancing its argument, U.S. Cellular notes that City Council members, during the voice votes on SP-149 and SP-150, mentioned only the pairs of reasons noted above. According to U.S. Cellular, these reasons alone constitute the City Council's true bases for the denials. We reject this argument for several reasons. 72 First, all of the reasons set forth in the City's letters of July 17, 2001, 21 and July 20, 2001, were aired during the extensive proceedings the City conducted on SP-149 and SP-150, which included consideration by the Planning Director, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. 22 In other words, the City did not create the reasons set forth in its denial letters post hoc. In fact, the reasons set forth in the City's letters were the same, or substantially similar to, the reasons set forth in the Agenda Packets, which Planning Director Daroga created at the very beginning of the process, prior to the Planning Commission's initial consideration of SP-149 and SP-150. All City Council members received copies of the respective Agenda Packets prior to the hearings on SP-149 and SP-150. 23 Further, the City noted in its July 20, 2001, letter that its denial was based, in part, on the Planning Commission's recommendation, which in turn was based on Planning Director Daroga's findings set forth in the Agenda Packet. 73 Second, the Zoning Ordinance specifically provides that [a]ny decision[] to deny an application for the placement, construction, modification of towers for cellular or personal communication service, or specialized radio mobile service shall be conveyed to the applicant in writing. Broken Arrow Zoning Ord. art. VIII, § 18.16. Thus, local law identifies the written decision as the proper source for the reasons supporting the denial, see Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d at 72, and this court will not assume that the City acted in contravention of section 18.16's self-imposed procedural requirement. 74 Similarly, given the writing requirement contained in the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), logic dictates that we look to the required writing to determine the basis for the City Council's decision. As the First Circuit suggested in Todd, the purpose of section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)'s writing requirement is to facilitate meaningful judicial review. 244 F.3d at 60 ([The] written denial must contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those reasons.). 75 Third, according to U.S. Cellular, [i]t would be patently unfair to speculate that the members of the City Council who voted upon the specific motion, as seconded, would agree to that which was not expressly voted upon. We agree. But it would be similarly unfair to assume, as U.S. Cellular invites us to, that each City Council member who voted to deny U.S. Cellular's application necessarily adopted only those reasons stated by the Council member who initiated the motion at the end of lengthy written and oral consideration. Fortunately, the City's denial letters, which set forth in writing the City's reasons for denial, remove the need for such speculation. 76 Based on the above, we reject U.S. Cellular's argument that we should remove from the scope of our substantial-evidence review the reasons set forth in the City's denial letters of July 17, 2001, and July 20, 2001 and record evidence supporting those reasons.