Opinion ID: 1450050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The City's denial of the application was supported by substantial evidence.

Text: The AMC provides that when considering a special use permit, the City may consider a number of factors including the height of the proposed tower, the proximity of the tower to residential structures, the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties, the surrounding topography, and the surrounding tree coverage and foliage. [7] We, and other courts, have held that these are legitimate concerns for a locality. Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 580 (stating that the zoning board may consider other valid public goals such as safety and aesthetics); see also T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County, Kan., 546 F.3d 1299, 1312 (10th Cir.2008) (noting that aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir.1999) (recognizing that aesthetic concerns can be a valid basis for zoning decisions); Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro, 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1255 (D.Or.2004). [8] There was substantial evidence concerning these factors. A number of residents claimed that the monopole would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential property, that the pole would not be completely screened, and that it would interfere with residents' views of the Cascade Mountains and other scenic views. This evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence, and accordingly the district court should have deferred to the City's determination that the evidence was adequate to support its denial of the application under the AMC. See MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 725 (stating that this Court may not overturn the Board's decision on `substantial evidence' grounds if that decision is authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence).