Opinion ID: 874533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the City Council Violate Due Process by Failing to Limit Its Review to the Record Generated before the P & Z Commission?

Text: Turner first argues that the City Council was required to hear the matter as an appellate proceeding and to consider only the record developed before the P & Z Commission. Based upon that assertion, Turner contends that it was denied due process because the Council received evidence outside that record, specifically testimony at the public hearing held on August 18, 2003, and e-mails [3] received by some Council members before it issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law. With the exception of one e-mail (the Bonnett e-mail) that will be discussed below, four e-mails were sent to Council members on September 16 and 17, 2003, after the Council had voted to deny Turner's special use permit but just before it issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 18, 2003. None of those e-mails were mentioned in the findings of fact. The City Council interpreted its ordinance as retaining to itself the power to conduct a de novo review of the application for a special use permit. There is a strong presumption favoring its interpretation of its own ordinance. Chisholm v. Twin Falls County, 139 Idaho 131, 75 P.3d 185 (2003); Sanders Orchard v. Gem County ex rel. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 137 Idaho 695, 52 P.3d 840 (2002). City Code § 10-17-2 provides that any action by the P & Z Commission may be reviewed and heard by the Council. The Council interpreted that code section as requiring a public hearing. The City Code does not contain any provision outlining the procedures for hearing a matter strictly in an appellate capacity. The procedures for conducting hearings by either the City Council or the P & Z Commission are set forth in City Code § 10-17-4, entitled Procedures for the Conduct of Hearings. That code section requires a public hearing at which those interested can present testimony and exhibits and be questioned by members of the body conducting the hearing. The presentation of additional evidence is consistent with a de novo review and is inconsistent with an appellate review confined to the record made below. Petersen v. Franklin County, 130 Idaho 176, 938 P.2d 1214 (1997). City Code § 10-13-2-2 directs the City Council on appeals from an application for a special use permit to reach a decision to uphold, conditionally uphold or overrule the decision of the commission. The Council's authority to uphold, conditionally uphold or overrule the decision of the P & Z Commission is also consistent with the Council exercising de novo review. Davisco Foods Int'l, Inc. v. Gooding County, 141 Idaho 784, 118 P.3d 116 (2005). The Council's interpretation that its ordinance required it to conduct a de novo review of Turner's application for a special use permit is reasonable. Since it was exercising de novo review, it was not confined to the record made before the P & Z Commission. Turner argues that even if the City Council was empowered to receive additional evidence, the Council deprived Turner of due process when it voted on July 21, 2003, to review and hear the P & Z Commission's approval of the special use request. Turner contends it was denied due process because it did not receive notice of that hearing and because some members of the Council had received an ex parte communication before that hearing. The ex parte communication was the Bonnett e-mail dated July 9, 2003, in which Bonnett expressed opposition to the P & Z Commission's action in approving the transmission tower. A local governing body sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, and therefore must comply with the requirements of due process, when the body is applying general rules or policies to specific individuals, interests, or situations. Cooper v. Board of County Comm'rs of Ada County, 101 Idaho 407, 410, 614 P.2d 947, 950 (1980). The requirements of due process did not apply to the City Council's decision on July 21, 2003, to review and hear the P & Z Commission's approval of Turner's special use permit. The Council was not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it decided to review the Commission's action. That decision was not required to be made after an evidentiary hearing, nor was it required to be based upon evidence in the record. It did not involve applying general rules or policies to specific individuals, interests, or situations. The Council was not making any determination regarding the merits of Turner's application for a special use permit. It was merely deciding to exercise its power to hear that application. Therefore, there was no due process violation in connection with the Council's decision to review Turner's application for a special use permit. In its reply brief, Turner also contends that the City Council violated due process by failing to disclose the existence of the Bonnett e-mail prior to the public hearing held on August 18, 2003. Turner contends it recently discovered the existence of the e-mail. `[T]his Court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in the appellant's reply brief.' A reviewing court looks only to the initial brief on appeal for the issues presented because those are the arguments and authority to which the respondent has an opportunity to respond in the respondent's brief. Suitts v. Nix, 141 Idaho 706, 708, 117 P.3d 120, 122 (2005) (quoting from Myers v. Workmen's Auto Ins. Co., 140 Idaho 495, 508, 95 P.3d 977, 990 (2004)). Although Turner's appellate counsel may have just learned of the Bonnett e-mail, a letter from Turner's prior counsel objecting to the public hearing refers to the e-mail. Likewise, Turner's prior counsel mentioned the e-mail during the public hearing. Any allegation that the City Council yiolated due process by failing to disclose the existence of the Bonnett e-mail should have been raised below. It is too late to raise that issue in the reply brief. Therefore, we will not address the issue.