Appeal #PLNAPP and PLNAPP , Billboard relocation applications at 726 W. South Temple and 738 W. South Temple

Transcription

1 Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Mary J. Woodhead, Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Officer Samantha Slark, and (801) and Betsy Haws, (801) Date: December 10, 2015 Re: Appeal #PLNAPP and PLNAPP , Billboard relocation applications at 726 W. South Temple and 738 W. South Temple Appeal of Administrative Decision Salt Lake City Response INTRODUCTION Consistent with a long-held policy of beautifying its downtown, on November 25, 2015, the City denied CBS s application to relocate its billboard and approved Corner Property s application, creating a net reduction in the number of billboards within its boundaries. The City only granted Corner Property s application because Corner Property agreed to execute a billboard relocation agreement under which it promised to remove a billboard located on a critical gateway street, 500 South. The City has statutory discretion to deny applications to relocate billboards as long as it is willing to pay the property owner just compensation as it has consistently represented to CBS it will do here. Because the City s decisions on the relocation applications were rational and well within the Mayor s executive discretion, the Appeal Hearing Officer should affirm the decisions. CBS primarily argues that the City s decision was illegal under the Equal Protection Clause. In order to prevail on this argument, CBS must show that (1) a class-of-one equal protection claim applies to the City s discretionary decision; (2) it was similarly situated to Corner Property in every material respect; and (3) that the City denied its relocation application solely because of illegal personal animus. CBS cannot meet this high legal standard nor do facts exist to support its claim even SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY, UT TEL FAX

2 if it was cognizable here. The City s decision was motivated by a policy priority of economically reducing the number of billboards on critical gateway streets to beautify downtown. CBS s second argument that it has a right to relocate its billboard because its application was filed first has no basis in state law or City ordinance. In fact, this position is contrary to the full discretionary authority provided to the City by state statute. RELEVANT FACTS 1. On October 21, 2014, CBS Outdoor ( CBS ) submitted an application to Salt Lake City Corporation (the City ) under Utah Code to raise the height and relocate a billboard located at 726 West South Temple to 738 West South Temple. (See Letter to Ken Brown from CBS Outdoor, Oct. 20, 2014, attached hereto as Ex. 1.) 2. The billboard at 726 West South Temple was demolished in November 2014, because CBS s lease at that location expired. 3. On December 4, 2014, the City denied CBS s application to relocate and raise the height of the then-demolished sign at 726 West South Temple. (See Letter to CBS Outdoor from Katherine Lewis, Dec. 4, 2014, attached hereto as Ex. 2.) 4. The City and CBS engaged in multiple and letter exchanges about CBS s request to relocate and raise the height of the billboard, and in each letter, the City notified CBS that it could modify its application and request to relocate the billboard under Utah Code 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i), subject to the City s obligation to pay just compensation for the sign under Utah Code 10-9a-513(2), if the City denied CBS s request to relocate the billboard. (See Various Letters and Correspondence, attached hereto as Ex. 3; see also Exs. 1, 2.) 5. On January 2, 2015, CBS filed a lawsuit Outfront Media f/k/a/ CBS Outdoor v. Salt Lake City Corporation, claiming that it had the right to relocate and raise the height of the Page 2

3 billboard. On August 18, 2015, the court ruled that CBS did not have the right to both relocate and raise the height under Utah Code and affirmed the City s denial of CBS s application. 6. On September 15, 2015, CBS modified its application to request relocation of the billboard to 738 West South Temple under Utah Code 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i). (See Letter to Ken Brown from CBS Outdoor, Sept. 15, 2015, attached hereto as Ex. 4.) 7. During the same period of time, the City was processing an application from Corner Property, L.C. ( Corner Property ) to demolish a billboard located at 280 West 500 South and relocate the billboard to 726 West South Temple, where the CBS billboard was previously located. (See Corner Property s Billboard Construction Application, attached hereto as Ex. 5.) 8. Corner Property s application to demolish and relocate the billboard was also pursuant to Utah Code 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i). See id. 9. Both CBS s and Corner Property s new billboards would be located on a gateway, which is defined in City Code to include signs that front Interstate 15. (See SLC Code (B) (definition of gateway), attached hereto as Ex. 6.) 10. Pursuant to City Code, both CBS s and Corner Property s relocation applications are prohibited because no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet (600 ) of the right of way of any gateway. (See id. at 21A (N).) 11. In each instance, Corner Property and CBS were requesting that, pursuant to Utah Code 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i), the City exercise its discretion to waive its prohibition on new billboards within 600 feet of a gateway to allow the relocation application. Page 3

4 12. Under Utah Code section (3), the City cannot approve both relocation requests because billboards may not be within 500 feet of each other. 13. Mayor Becker considered both applications to relocate. Consistent with the City s policy of reducing the total number of billboards in the City, he authorized the denial of the CBS application and the approval of the Corner Property application, with the understanding that it would result in the net reduction of total billboards within the City. (See Declaration of Mayor Ralph Becker, attached hereto as Ex. 7.) 14. On November 25, 2015, the City denied CBS s application to relocate to 738 West South Temple in favor of its longstanding policy in favor of retiring and removing billboards as the opportunity to do so arises. (See Letter to Leslie Van Frank from Katherine Lewis, Nov. 25, 2015, attached hereto as Ex. 8.) 15. On November 25, 2015, the City also approved Corner Property s request to demolish the billboard located at 280 West 500 South and construct a new billboard at 726 West South Temple. (See to Katherine Lewis from Ken Brown, Nov. 25, 2015, attached hereto as Ex. 9.) 16. The City approved Corner Property s request to relocate to 726 West South Temple because it has a policy interest in removing billboards from the 500 South gateway. In order to ensure the removal of the 500 South billboard, the City and Corner Property executed a billboard relocation agreement, which reiterated the City s policy goals of removing a billboard on the 500 South gateway. (See Billboard Relocation Agreement and October 27, from K. Lewis to Ben Rogers, attached hereto as Ex. 10.) Although the billboard relocation agreement was signed in October of 2015, it was recorded on November 30, 2015, the first business day after the relocation application was approved. Id. Page 4

5 17. On November 30, 2015, CBS appealed the denial of its relocation application, BLD , and the approval of Corner Property s relocation application, BLD It argued that the City s decision with respect to both applications was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. 18. On December 3, 2015, the parties received notice that the appeal hearing was scheduled for December 16, (See Dec. 3, :42 p.m. from K. Lewis to L. Van Frank and J. Rogers with attachments, attached as Ex. 11.) 19. Over the objections of both Corner Property and the City, CBS requested that the appeals hearing officer reschedule the hearing for the end of January to allow CBS time to review responses to two outstanding GRAMA requests. The appeals hearing officer denied the extension. 20. CBS s first GRAMA request sought, Any and all documents relating to Corner Property, LC and/or Utah Outdoor Advertising, Inc.'s permit request designated as BLD , including but not limited to applications and submissions, written correspondence (including but not limited to U.S. Mail and ), and any other written materials, written by any person or entity, that relate to the permit request designated as BLD The City provided documents responsive to this request on December 7, (See Nov. 10, 2015 GRAMA Request, attached as Ex. 12; see also December 7, from Galina Urry to K. Lewis, attached as Ex.13). 21. CBS submitted its second GRAMA request on December 3, 2015, apparently after it received notice of the December 16 hearing. (See Dec. 3, :57 p.m. GRAMA Request, attached as Ex. 14.) The request seeks documents related to the City s policy in favor of retiring and removing billboards when the opportunity to do so arises. Id. The City provided Page 5

6 documents responsive to this request on December 9, (See Dec. 9, from K. Lewis to L. Van Frank, attached as Ex. 15.) 22. As the documents responsive to CBS s second GRAMA request show, the Becker Administration has consistently sought to remove billboards when possible. It has consistently denied relocation applications, unless it results in a net reduction in the number of billboards in a critical gateway district. (See id (listing addresses of billboards where the City has denied relocation applications). The Administration asked the City Council to adopt stronger language in the City s billboard ordinance, proposing that the purpose statement in the ordinance explicitly state that this chapter is intended to limit and reduce the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City. (See Transmittal dated November 14, 2011 from Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director, to Salt Lake City Council regarding zoning text amendments, attached as Ex. 16.) The Mayor reiterated his Administration s goal of reducing the number of billboards within the City in the 2013 State of the City address. (See State of the City, attached as Ex. 17.) Finally, the City has contracted with property owners to record restrictive covenants preventing the construction of billboards in the special gateway district when approached with such an opportunity by property owners. (See Purchase and Sale Agreement recorded June 30, 2015 between the City and Mercury Investments Limited Partnership and Terratron, Inc., attached as Ex. 19.) STANDARD OF REVIEW Upon filing its appeal, CBS was required to specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, including every theory of relief that can be presented in district court. See Salt Lake City Code 21A A. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed de novo, based on applicable procedures and standards for approval. Id. 21A E.1. CBS, as Page 6

7 the appellant, bears the burden of proving that the relocation decisions were incorrect. Id. 21A F. ARGUMENT The appeals hearing officer can affirm the City s decisions first three reasons. First, the City s relocation decisions were a rational exercise of its discretionary authority. Second, CBS s equal protection claim fails. Finally, CBS has no vested property right to move its billboard, so general principals of first in time, first in right do not apply. I. The City s Relocation Decisions Were a Rational Exercise of Its Discretionary Authority. The City exercised its statutory discretion to deny CBS s relocation application and approve Corner Property s relocation application. Its decision is rationally related to the legitimate purpose stated in its billboard ordinance, the discretion afforded it by state statute, and Mayor Becker s policy priorities. The purpose of Salt Lake City s billboard ordinance, City Code section 21A , is to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number. This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the... relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the City s gateways, views, vistas and related urban design elements.... (See Ex. 6.) The purposes behind the City s sign ordinance, of which billboards are one part, include preserving and improving the appearance of the City as a place in which to live and work, and create an attraction to nonresidents to come to visit or trade. See Salt Lake City Ordinance 21A A.1. The City has prioritized which billboards it would like to remove when they are non-conforming, looking first to billboards in districts zoned residential, historic, residential R-MU, or downtown D-1, D-3, and D-4. Billboards on gateways into the City are Page 7

8 a secondary priority. Id. at 21A F. 1 The City s ordinance forbids the construction of new billboards within 600 feet of any gateway. Id. at 221A N. Although the City s ordinance prohibits the construction of both proposed billboards on a gateway street like I-15, state statute provides an exception. Both CBS and Corner Property requested a permit from the City to relocate their billboard to 738 West South Temple and 726 West South Temple, respectively, under that exception, which is contained in Utah Code section 10-9a-511(3)(c). That statute provides, in relevant part: (i) Notwithstanding a prohibition in its zoning ordinance, a municipality may permit a billboard owner to relocate the billboard within the municipality s boundaries to a location that is mutually acceptable to the municipality and the billboard owner. (ii) If the municipality and billboard owner cannot agree to a mutually acceptable location within 90 days after the owner submits a written request to relocate the billboard, the provisions of Subsection 10-9a-513(2)(a)(iv) apply. Id. (emphasis added). Subsections 10-9a-513(2)(a)(iv) and 10-9a-513(d) provide that if the municipality prevents the billboard owner from relocating a billboard that meets certain specifications after a request has been made, the City must pay just compensation for the value of the billboard. Accordingly, even though the City s zoning ordinances prohibit billboard construction on a gateway, subsection 10-9a- 511(3)(c) provides the City with complete discretion to deviate from that ordinance. The choice between allowing a company to relocate a billboard or denying the application and paying just compensation is a decision entirely within the City s discretion under Utah law. All of the proposed billboards are within a gateway area. Corner Property s billboard at 280 West 500 South is within a gateway district and also within half a block of Zone D-1, the highest 1 Code section 21A F. deals with the removal of non-conforming billboards but reflects the City Council s policy priority of moving billboards from certain areas of the city with the goal of enhancing the City s gateways, views, vistas and related urban design elements. Id. at 21A A. Page 8

9 priority for removal. CBS s billboard now-demolished billboard at 726 West South Temple is also within a designated gateway since it fronts I-15. See Salt Lake City Code at 21A B. 738 West South Temple, the proposed relocation property for CBS s demolished billboard, is within the gateway because it also fronts I-15. By operation of state statute, the City could not have approved both billboard relocation applications because they would have been within 500 feet of each other. See Utah Code (3)(a). The Mayor acted rationally and within his discretion in denying CBS s application and approving Corner Property s application. The City only approved Corner Property s application because Corner Property agreed to enter into the billboard relocation agreement under which Corner Property contracted to remove a billboard on 500 South, a critical gateway into the City. (See Ex. 7, Becker Decl.) Granting Corner Property s application means that CBS could not build at its proposed location, reducing the total number of billboards within the City by one and removing a billboard on the 500 South gateway. The Mayor made this decision consistently with a long-standing policy of his administration to retire billboards when possible. His administration has consistently denied billboard relocation applications. It has done so even when that decision resulted in protracted litigation. When provided the opportunity, he has entered into contracts with private property owners to restrict the construction of billboards on their property. He has stated his objective in the State of the City. The decisions at issue here are a reflection of that long-standing policy. II. CBS s Equal Protection Argument Fails. CBS alleges that the City s decisions are illegal because they violate the equal protection clause since equal protection of the law requires that similarly situated persons be treated alike. See CBS Appeal at 1 (quoting Gardner v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 2008 UT 6, 38, 178 P.3d 893). CBS s class-of-one equal protection argument fails because the City has complete discretion to waive Page 9

10 its prohibition on billboards in gateway areas under circumstances agreeable to both parties. Additionally, CBS cannot meet the elements of a class-of-one equal protection claim because it is not similarly situated to Corner Property. Finally, there is no evidence of illegal animus, a necessary element of the claim. A. CBS s Class-of-One Equal Protection Claim Fails Because Subsection 10-9a-511(3)(c) Affords the City Full Discretion to Waive its Prohibition on New Billboards in Unique Circumstances. When a government s grant of authority is as broad as that found in Utah Code 10-9a- 511(3)(c), a class-of-one equal protection claim is not cognizable because the idea that similarly situated individuals may be treated differently is an accepted consequence of the discretion granted in the statute. See Wasatch Equality v. Alta Ski Lifts Co., 55 F. Supp.3d 1351, 1364 (D. Utah Sept. 23, 2014). Although federal and state courts have recognized class-of-one equal protection claims in certain contexts, the cause of action is premised on the existence of a clear standard against which departures, even for a single plaintiff, can be readily assessed. See Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 602 (2008). The doctrine does not apply where the discretion granted the government is so great that the rule that people should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions is not violated when one person is treated differently from others, because treating like individuals differently is an accepted consequence of the discretion granted. In such situations, allowing a challenge based on the arbitrary singling out of a particular person would undermine the very discretion that such state officials are entrusted to exercise. Id. at 603. Based on this principle, the Utah District Court declined to recognize a class-of-one equal protection claim for snowboarders treated differently on federal land than skiers because the government was afforded broad discretion under the Constitution to manage its own land. See e.g., Wasatch Equality v. Alta Ski Lifts Co., 55 F. Supp.3d 1351, 1364 (D. Utah Sept. 23, 2014) (holding that the case deals with the government s Page 10

11 discretionary authority in administering the public lands and is therefore not proper under the Equal Protection Clause ). Because of the restrictions in Utah Code section (3), the City could not grant both relocation applications. Its choice was to deny both applications or approve one application. In that regard, the City s decision was similar to a traffic officer deciding to pull over one driver for speeding but not another. It is also similar to a City human resources manager that is forced to lay off a certain number of employees from a department. In both instances, the only way to treat like individuals similarly would be to pull over no one or lay off everyone. The Equal Protection clause does not require such rigidity, particularly with respect to decisions that are inherently subjective and individualized. See Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that a broad allowance of class-of-one equal protection claims would constitute the federal courts as general-purpose second-guessers of the reasonableness of broad areas of state and local decision-making: a role that is both ill-suited to the federal courts and offensive to state and local autonomy in our federal system (quoting Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199, (10th Cir. 2004)); see also Engquist, 553 U.S. at 604 (declining to recognize a class-of-one equal protection claim based on the subjective and individualized nature of decisions in the public employment context). The same rationale is true here, and the Appeals Hearing Officer should decline to recognize a class-of-one equal protection claim. B. CBS s Cannot Meet the Elements of a Class-of-One Equal Protection Claim. To prove a class-of-one equal protection violation, CBS must demonstrate that [it] was treated differently than another person similarly situated [and] that the selective treatment resulted from a malicious or bad faith intent. Id. Under a class-of-one theory, CBS must present evidence that the defendant deliberately sought to deprive [it] of the equal protection of the law for reasons of a Page 11

12 personal nature unrelated to the duties of the defendant s position. Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 18, 243 P.3d 1261 (quoting Patterson v. American Fork City, 2003 UT 7, 33, 67 P.3d 466). In other words, what is required is a showing of a totally illegitimate animus toward the plaintiff by the defendant. Id. Because zoning decisions will almost always[] treat one landowner differently from another, it is the presence of evidence of vindictive action, illegal animus, or ill will that will distinguish run-of-the-mill zoning cases from cases of constitutional right. Patterson v. American Fork City, 2003 UT 7, 31 (quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, (Breyer, J. concurring)). Thus, a showing of uneven enforcement of the law is not enough. Id., 33 (quoting Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 932 (7th Cir. 2001). CBS must also show that it was similarly situated in every material respect to Corner Property, but still treated differently. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2011). The City can easily clear the rational basis standard applicable to a class-of-one equal protection claim. The hearing officer should only reverse the City s decision if it fails rational basis review, which requires a showing that the government action was irrational and abusive and wholly unrelated to any legitimate state activity. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gardner v. Board of County Com rs of Wasatch County, 2008 UT 6, 39, 178 P.3d 893. The rational basis standard is objective, meaning that if there is a reasonable basis for the City s actions, the appeals hearing officer should not inquire into the government actor s actual motives. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC, 656 F.3d at In both the Patterson and Peterson rulings, the Utah Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs class of one equal protection claims. In Peterson, the Court upheld the denial of the Peterson s rezoning application, holding that there was no evidence that the Peterson s were maliciously singled out by the City Council or that their application was denied based on factors unrelated to the Council s Page 12

13 governmental duty UT 58, 20. In Patterson, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs equal protection claims on a motion to dismiss because they had not specifically alleged intentional discrimination based on personal animus, although it does appear that they alleged unequal treatment. Id., CBS cannot show that it was similarly situated in every material respect to Corner Property. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC, 656 F.3d at The two billboards have different values, which would affect the assessment of just compensation outlined in subsections 10-9a-513(2)(a) and (d). As just one example, CBS s billboard was demolished within weeks of its application to relocate because its lease expired. A billboard s actual annual revenue effects valuation, as does the underlying lease. See Utah Code 10-9a-513(2)(d)(i) (stating that just compensation includes the value of the existing billboard at a fair market capitalization rate, based on actual annual revenue, less any annual rent expense ). Presumably, a billboard with a limited life expectancy is less expensive for the City to permanently remove than an operational one. Additionally, Corner Property had a billboard on 500 South it was willing to take down; CBS did not make a comparable offer. Objectively, CBS cannot 2 Gardner v. Board of County Com rs of Wasatch County, 2008 UT 6, 17 P.3d 893, the case cited by CBS, is distinguishable. In Gardner, some evidence existed that the County singled out certain landowners in the Canyon Meadows development for more stringent zoning regulations without applying the same restrictive ordinance to other residential lots that were potentially geologically unstable. The County did not counter this allegation. Gardner, 2008 UT 6, 36. Additionally, other affidavit evidence was presented that the County health department treated percolation tests for future septic systems more stringently for property within the Canyon Meadows area than other like property. This was also unrefuted. Id., 37. The difference here is that the City has explained why it granted Corner Property s application and denied CBS s application; when considered together, it created a net reduction of billboards by one and facilitated the removal of a billboard from 500 South. Moreover, in Gardner, the Court just found that the affidavit evidence was enough to survive summary judgment; it made no decision on the merits of the equal protection claim. To prevail here, CBS must prove that the City denied its equal protection rights on a de novo standard of review, much higher than the summary judgment standard at issue in Gardner. Page 13

14 allege that the two applications are similar and on that basis alone, the decision should be affirmed. Because there is a rational basis for treating these two billboard companies differently, the appeals hearing officer can affirm the decision without inquiring further into the City s subjective motives. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC, 656 F.3d at Even so, CBS has no evidence that the City s decision was motivated by illegal personal animus. It had no evidence of an illegal motive when the appeal was filed, and CBS has found no evidence of an improper motive after a GRAMA inquiry. Such evidence does not exist. The decision on appeal here was a policy priority of the Administration, consistent with City ordinance. Even if the appeals hearing officer were to assume that moving a billboard from 500 South does not exist in a written City policy and even constitutes uneven enforcement of the City s sign ordinance, the decision would still be a far cry from showing the personal animus required to prove a class-of-one equal protection claim. Patterson v. American Fork City, 2003 UT 7, 31 (quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, (Breyer, J. concurring)). The Mayor s official decision to prioritize one gateway street over another is rationally related to his official duties and a rational exercise of his executive powers to improve the welfare of Salt Lake s citizens by beautifying the downtown. The fact that another Mayor might prioritize the I-15 gateway over the 500 South gateway does not render the decisions here irrational or unconstitutional. III. CBS Does Not Have A Vested Property Right in Its Relocation Application. Next, CBS relies on several inapplicable cases to make the argument that approving Corner Property s application and denying CBS s application violates the legal principle of first in time, superior in right. This legal concept does not apply because CBS does not have a vested interest in building a billboard; the City has complete discretion to approve or deny billboard applications. Page 14

15 The cases cited by CBS are legally and factually unrelated to this case. Homeside Lending Inc. v. Miller, stands for the simple proposition that typically property liens have priority in order of their creation in point of time, but then articulates exceptions to that general rule UT App 247, 17. The law surrounding the proper ordering of vested liens on property has nothing to do with the City s exercise of its discretion to grant or deny a billboard application. Likewise, Estate of Steed v New Escalante Irr. Co., 846 P.2d 1223, 1224 (Utah 1992) deals with the general priority of vested water rights. Republic Outdoor Advertising, LC v. Utah Dept. of Transp., 2011 UT App 198, 258 P.3d 619, references an internal UDOT rule that it considers applications in the order they were filed; UDOT s process has no application to the City s process and does not state a broadly applicable legal rule for the evaluation of billboards. In sum, CBS s first in time, first in right argument is wrong because CBS has no right to approval of a discretionary permit. Filing an application to move a billboard does not give CBS a vested property interest to build a new billboard in the location CBS wishes to move to. Rather, under Utah law, CBS is vested only in the right to have its application considered under the ordinances and laws that are in effect at the time the application is filed. See Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan, 617 P.2d 388, 396 (Utah 1980) (noting that a property owner should be able to plan for developing his property in a manner permitted by existing zoning regulations with some degree of assurance that the basic ground rules will not be changed in midstream ); see also Scherbel v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 758 P.2d 897 (Utah 1988). It does not, as CBS wishes this Court to find, guarantee approval or create a property right to use the property in the specific manner the applicant desires. By way of example, in the land use context, a complete land use application is vested only for the purpose of subsequent, substantive land use authority review. Utah Code 10-9a-509.5(1)(a). This only entitles the applicant to review of its proposed land use, and does not entitle the applicant to automatic approval, or as claimed by Page 15

16 CBS, the right to unilaterally use its property as it desires and prohibit all other users within 500 feet from having the same privilege. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the appeals hearing officer should affirm both the approval of Corner Property s application and the denial of CBS s application. Page 16