Opinion ID: 874533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the City Council's Decision Supported by Substantial Evidence?

Text: After reviewing and hearing the matter, the City Council concluded that the proposed transmission tower was not consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, was not consistent with the zoning provisions of the City Code, was not a proper use in the C-1 zone, and would be unsightly in the proposed location. Turner contends that the City Council's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Turner argues that the City Council did not present `substantial evidence' to support reversing the P & Z Commission's decision. . . . [I]t appears the City Council was concerned strictly with aesthetics and nothing more, as evidenced by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Emphasis in original.) Turner also criticizes the Council's failure to address the P & Z Commission's findings, stating, Notwithstanding the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings, in the City Council's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision the Council make no reference to any information generated by the Commission. The City Council was not required to address the P & Z Commission's findings or decision, nor was it required to find that the Commission had made any legal error or that its findings lacked support in the record. The Council heard this matter de novo. A de novo review means a trying of the matter anewthe same as if it had never been heard before. Gilbert v. Moore, 108 Idaho 165, 168, 697 P.2d 1179, 1182 (1985). The Council's decision to conduct its de novo review had the effect of removing the P & Z Commission's decision from the record. See, Leavitt v. Leavitt, 142 Idaho 664, 668, 132 P.3d 421, 425 (2006). Thus, the Council did not err by failing to address the Commission's decision. In support of its assertion that the City Council's decision is not supported by evidence in the record, Turner argues, What more compelling proof is there than not one citizen appeared and objected to the tower during the Planning and Zoning hearings and not one person appeared before the City Council, even after notice to the entire Magic Valley area, to voice any objection to the tower? Turner's argument misapprehends the nature of the public hearing. It was not a trial where the weight of the evidence presented determined the result. The City Code provided that a special use permit may be authorized under certain circumstances. City Code § 10-13-2-2. It did not state that a special use permit shall be granted if those circumstances are proven at a public hearing. The use of the word may shows that the City Council had discretion regarding the decision to grant or deny the special use permit. In the exercise of that discretion, the Council could deny the application even if nobody testified against it. The City Council was also entitled to consider aesthetics when deciding whether to grant Turner's application for a special use permit. As this Court stated in Lamar Corp. v. City of Twin Falls, 133 Idaho 36, 41, 981 P.2d 1146, 1151 (1999) (citations omitted), with respect to billboards: A city's appearance is a substantial government interest, and cities may enact zoning ordinances to preserve aesthetics. A city may regulate the construction and placement of billboards for the purpose of preserving aesthetics even though aesthetic judgments are `necessarily subjective.' Likewise, in Williamson v. City of McCall, 135 Idaho 452, 19 P.3d 766 (2001), we upheld a district court's determination that landowners had failed to prove that their request to separate their property from the city would not materially mar the symmetry of the city. In upholding the district judge, we stated: This determination was based in part on the judge's visit to the property which is allowed under I.C. § 50-229. The district judge's own assessment of the aesthetic symmetry is competent evidence. 135 Idaho at 454, 19 P.3d at 768. The City Council did not abuse its discretion in denying the special use permit based upon its finding that [a] 120' lattice transmission/receiving tower [at a gateway entrance to the city] would be unsightly and appear to be out of place in this area.