Opinion ID: 4214272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 12 This is an appeal from a district court‘s review of an administrative appeal challenging a municipal land use decision.8 be appealed to an appeal authority.‖ The hearing officer disagreed and concluded that he had authority to review the City‘s decisions in their entirety, including the aspects of state law that were implicated by the City‘s decisions. 7 ―Any person adversely affected by a final decision made in the exercise of or in violation of the provisions of this chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within 30 days after the decision is final.‖ UTAH CODE § 10-9a-801(2)(a). The district court determined that the hearing officer‘s authority was limited to considering the application and interpretation of city ordinances, not state statutes, and accordingly disregarded the portions of the hearing officer‘s decision that dealt with state law. No party has argued that we need to resolve the issue of the scope of the hearing officer‘s authority, and so we express no opinion as to that issue. 8 The parties dispute whether on appeal we review the decision of the City or the hearing officer; neither argues that we review the decision of the district court. The City argues that, because the hearing officer in this case ―perform[ed] the same review as a district court in a petition for judicial review or an appellate court on an appeal from that decision,‖ the decision we review is the one made by the City, that is, by Mayor Becker. CBS counters that, under Utah Code section 10-9a-801, the courts review only a ―final decision,‖ which Utah Code section 10-9a-708 defines as the ―written decision‖ of the ―appeal authority.‖ We disagree with both parties‘ characterization of our review. Their apparent consensus that we do not review the decision of the district court may be attributable to language in our previous cases suggesting that, ―[w]hen a district court reviews an order of a local land use authority and we exercise appellate review of the district court‘s judgment, we act as if we were reviewing the land use authority‘s decision directly.‖ Fox v. (Continued) 6 Cite as: 2017 UT 74 Opinion of the Court ―When a district court reviews an order of a local land use authority and we exercise appellate review of the district court‘s judgment, . . . we afford no deference to the district court‘s decision.‖9 The legislature has directed that ―[t]he courts shall . . . presume that a decision, ordinance, or regulation made under the authority of this chapter is valid; and [] determine only whether or not the decision, ordinance, or regulation is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.‖10 ―A determination of illegality requires a determination that the decision, ordinance, or regulation violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect at the time the decision was made or the ordinance or regulation adopted.‖11 The proper interpretation of a set of statutes presents a question of law, which we review for correctness. 12 We review the interpretation of ordinances for correctness as well.13 A decision is Park City, 2008 UT 85, ¶ 11, 200 P.3d 182. But as we have recently noted, this language should not be understood to mean that the district court‘s decision is a superfluity. See McElhaney v. City of Moab, 2017 UT 65, ¶¶ 15–26, __ P.3d __. Our recent decision in McElhaney clarified that the fact that we afford no deference to the intermediate court does not obviate the need for parties to make and preserve below the arguments they wish to press on appeal. Id. ¶¶ 24–25. And the lack of deference likewise does not mean that we are not in fact reviewing the decision of the district court. So, as we said in McElhaney, when we exercise appellate review of a district court‘s judgment in connection with judicial review under Utah Code section 10-9a-801, ―we review the intermediate court‘s decision.‖ Id. ¶ 26. 9 Fox, 2008 UT 85, ¶ 11. 10UTAH CODE § 10-9a-801(3)(a) (2016). We note that this provision was recently amended, effective May 9, 2017. See H.B. 232, 62nd Legislature, Gen. Sess. (2017). We apply the version of the statute that was in effect at the time of the events relevant to this proceeding. 11 UTAH CODE § 10-9a-801(3)(d) (2016). See Patterson v. Utah Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602, 604 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (―[W]hether or not the Board‘s decision is illegal depends on a proper interpretation and application of the law.‖). 12 2 Ton Plumbing, L.L.C. v. Thorgaard, 2015 UT 29, ¶ 17, 345 P.3d 675. 7 OUTFRONT MEDIA v. SLC CORP. Opinion of the Court arbitrary and capricious only if it is not supported by ―substantial evidence,‖ which is ―that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.‖14