Opinion ID: 2626015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CLUDMA Requires Transmission of a Record by a Land Use Authority in Every Case Where a Record Is Available

Text: ¶ 26 The Citizens first argue that the district court should have required the County to transmit the record of the proceedings below. The district court found that Ordinance 454 was a legislative decision, which it was required to uphold so long as it is reasonably debatable that the decision ... promotes the purposes of [CLUDMA]. [18] In light of this finding, the court concluded that it did not have to review a record to determine whether there is no basis for the [Council's] decision. ¶ 27 The Citizens contend that there is nothing in the plain language of CLUDMA that excepts legislative land use decisions from the general requirement that a record be provided to the reviewing court. CLUDMA states that [t]he land use authority ... shall transmit to the reviewing court the record of its proceedings. [19] Accordingly, the Citizens assert that in every case where a record exists that may be transmitted, CLUDMA requires its transmission to the reviewing court. ¶ 28 Cloudrock argues that the district court correctly concluded that it did not require a record to review the Council's decision because (1) CLUDMA does not expressly require a record when reviewing a legislative land use decision; (2) a record is not required given the highly deferential standard of reviewwhether it is reasonably debatable that the decision ... promotes the purposes of [CLUDMA] [20] applicable to legislative land use decisions; and (3) the provision of CLUDMA authorizing a court to call witnesses and take evidence when there is no record available [21] shows that the legislature did not contemplate that transmission and review of a record would be required in all cases. ¶ 29 We are persuaded by the Citizens' position. The language of CLUDMA clearly requires that a record shall be transmitted to the reviewing court and contains no exceptions. [22] We find unpersuasive Cloudrock's contention to the contrary, which rests on its own conception of the usefulness of a record in reviewing legislative land use decisions and tenuous inferences it draws from related statutory provisions. ¶ 30 Although Cloudrock may be correct that review of a legislative land use decision under the reasonably debatable standard may not always require resort to a record, there are times in which a record may be useful even under such a deferential standard. For example, when the plain text of a legislative land use decision is ambiguous as to the decision's effect, the record may be necessary to clarify legislative intent and determine the true nature of the enactment. [23] And the assessment of the actual effect of the decision is certainly a threshold determination that must precede the assessment of whether it is reasonably debatable that the decision serves a legitimate land use purpose. ¶ 31 Additionally, a record is clearly helpful with respect to the second ground for invalidating a legislative land use decisionthat the decision is otherwise illegal. [24] A land use decision is illegal when it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect at the time the decision was made. [25] Whether there has been compliance with specific procedural statutory requirements, such as the provision of adequate notice or certain documents, would require a record upon which the district court could base factual determinations. ¶ 32 Finally, the fact that CLUDMA may provide for alternative means of obtaining evidence when a record of a legislative decision is unavailable does not, as Cloudrock suggests, support the conclusion that no record is required for review. The existence of language in Utah Code section 17-27a-801(8)(b) providing that a court may receive evidence or call witnesses in the event that no record exists [26] does not speak to the question of what must be done when a record does exist. It is section 17-27a-801(7) that speaks to this question, which states only that [t]he land use authority, or appeal authority, as the case may be, shall transmit to the reviewing court the record of its proceedings, including its minutes, findings, orders and, if available, a true and correct transcript of its proceedings. [27] When statutory language is clear, there is no need for us to look further to determine legislative intent. [28] We find the statute's plain language to be conclusive on this point and hold that CLUDMA requires transmission of a record to the reviewing court in all caseslegislative or administrativewhere a record exists. ¶ 33 Cloudrock acknowledges that the County did not transmit a record of the proceedings before the Council to the district court. In proceeding to the merits of the Citizens' challenge without a transmitted record, the district court erred. We now consider Cloudrock's argument that the district court's error does not justify reversing its grant of summary judgment.