Opinion ID: 2364430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court correctly applied the reasonably debatable standard because the council's decision to deny the rezoning request was legislative

Text: ¶ 9 The Utah Legislature has articulated the standards that a court must apply when reviewing municipal land use decisions in Utah Code section 10-9a-801 (2007): (3)(a) The courts shall: (i) presume that a decision, ordinance, or regulation made under the authority of this chapter is valid; and (ii) determine only whether or not the decision, ordinance, or regulation is arbitrary, capricious or illegal. (b) A decision, ordinance, or regulation involving the exercise of legislative discretion is valid if it is reasonably debatable that the decision, ordinance, or regulation promotes the purposes of this chapter and is not otherwise illegal. (c) A final decision of a land use authority or an appeal authority is valid if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. ¶ 10 This court has consistently held that the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances is fundamentally a legislative act. Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2003 UT 16, ¶ 11, 70 P.3d 47 (citing Sandy City v. Salt Lake Cnty., 827 P.2d 212, 221 (Utah 1992)); see also Scherbel v. Salt Lake City Corp., 758 P.2d 897, 899 (Utah 1988). The wisdom behind these holdings is that [t]he political nature of the decision making process underlying municipal zoning demands that the power to make such decisions be vested in persons who are publicly accountable for their choices. Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 11, 70 P.3d 47. Furthermore, [i]t is the policy of this court as enunciated in its prior decisions that it will avoid substituting its judgment for that of the legislative body of the municipality. Id. ¶ 12. Given this court's hesitation to substitute its judgment for that of a municipality, we apply the highly deferential reasonably debatable standard when reviewing a municipality's zoning decision. ¶ 11 The Petersens urge us to overrule this long line of precedent and hold that the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied their rezoning request and, therefore, that the district court should have applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the decision. We decline to do so. The case law and statutory authority on which the Petersens rely in making this argument is inapposite because it involves municipal appeal authorities hearing requests for variances and interpreting and applying existing zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment, 685 P.2d 1032, 1034-35 (Utah 1984) (reviewing whether the board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance was arbitrary and capricious by applying the substantial evidence standard); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210-11 & n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (reviewing the Board's interpretation of a zoning ordinance). The administrative bodies in these cases have been created specifically for the purpose of applying existing ordinances and evaluating the possibility of individual variances. These tasks are not of the same character as the Petersens' request to amend an existing zoning ordinance in its entirety. Therefore, because we see no reason to depart from our precedent, we hold that the Council's denial of the Petersens' rezoning request was a legislative decision. ¶ 12 Having determined that the district court in this case was reviewing a legislative decision under the reasonably debatable standard, we must now determine whether the district court was correct in holding that the City's decision was, in fact, reasonably debatable. A municipal board's decision will meet this standard if it is reasonably debatable that the [decision to grant or deny the new ordinance] is in the interest of the general welfare. Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 14, 70 P.3d 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 In Bradley v. Payson City Corp ., we were faced with facts very similar to the facts in this case. The plaintiffs in Bradley submitted an application to the City Council to rezone property from a low-density residential classification to a high-density classification. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Planning Commission recommended a denial of the application to the City Council despite a recognition that Payson City's General Plan did not prohibit the type of rezoning requested. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. At the City Council hearing to consider the application, there were a number of public comments expressing concern over the traffic implications of the proposed zoning ordinance and the ability to keep and raise horses which might be incompatible with high-density residential development. Id. ¶ 29. The City Council ultimately denied the application based in part on these public comments. See id. ¶ 5. ¶ 14 In upholding the City's denial of the application under the reasonably debatable standard, we recognized that public hearings and citizen comments are a legitimate source of information for city council members to consider in making legislative decisions. Id. ¶ 28. We also stated that we [were] satisfied that Payson City's consideration of public comments as a justification for its zoning decision reflects a reasonable judgment that properly took into account citizens' concerns. Id. ¶ 29. ¶ 15 As was the case in Bradley, at the Riverton City Council's hearing on the Petersens' application for rezoning of their Property, there were public comments made in opposition to the proposed change. These comments expressed concern about increases in traffic, the ability to continue to raise large farm animals, and the loss of the City's character. The Council properly considered these citizens' concerns in deciding to deny the Petersens' application. The discussions of spot zoning and the City's desire to buy part of the Property for a retention pond are irrelevant so long as the record reflects a reasonable basis for the decision. In reviewing the city council's decision, we do not apply trial-like formal rules of procedure or evidence.... Rather, we presume that city council members will measure public comments against their own personal knowledge of the various conditions in the city that bear upon zoning decisions. Id. ¶ 28 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision must simply be reasonably debatable after consideration of all the evidence in favor of and against the proposed change. In this case, there was clearly a reasonable basis for the Council to deny the Petersens' application. ¶ 16 In summary, we decline the Petersens' invitation to overrule our prior cases and reaffirm that a decision to amend or enact a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative decision. Such decisions are subject to a reasonably debatable standard of review. In this case, the Council's decision was reasonably debatable and we therefore uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City.