Opinion ID: 2639447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reasonably Debatable and Substantial Evidence Tests

Text: ¶ 14 As mentioned at the outset, our recognition of the distinction between legislative and administrative or quasi-judicial municipal powers has consistently determined the proper standard of review applicable to municipal land use disputes. For legislative decisions, we have applied a highly deferential variation of the arbitrary and capricious standard and limited our review to the strict question of whether the zoning ordinance `could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of the general welfare.' Smith Inv. Co., 958 P.2d at 252 (quoting Marshall, 141 P.2d at 709); Walker v. Brigham City, 856 P.2d 347, 349 (Utah 1993) (holding that the municipality's legislative decision would be upheld unless wholly discordant to reason and justice); Dowse, 255 P.2d at 724 (holding that zoning could be attacked only if there was no reasonable basis therefor). The selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the [city]; and does not, in and of itself, evidence an abuse of discretion. Phi Kappa Iota Fraternity, 212 P.2d at 181. ¶ 15 For administrative or quasi-judicial land use decisions, however, the substantial evidence test has traditionally applied. We have defined substantial evidence as that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion. First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990) (reviewing administrative evaluation of property for tax purposes). This standard has been applied to an array of administrative and quasi-judicial land use decisions. See e.g., Xanthos, 685 P.2d at 1035 (reviewing board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210 n. 5 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (reviewing city's administrative interpretation of its zoning ordinance); Wells v. Bd. of Adjustment of Salt Lake City Corp., 936 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (reviewing board of adjustment decision denying variance); Patterson v. Utah County Bd. of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602, 604 (Utah Ct. App.1995) (reviewing trial court's finding of an arbitrary and capricious action by county in approving special exception to zoning ordinance). Thus, while municipal land use decisions in Utah are valid unless arbitrary and capricious, the specific meaning of that standard is dependent upon the nature of the land use decision at issue.