Volume 263 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES — <italic>Exercise of Judicial or Quasi-judicial</italic> <italic>Function — Appellate review by District Court.</italic> A judgment rendered or final order made by a political subdivision exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the district court on appeal under K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-2101</cross_reference>. 2. SAME — <italic>Quasi-judicial Decision of Legislative Body.</italic> A decision of a legislative body is quasi-judicial if (1) a state or local law requires notice to the community before the action, (2) a state or local law requires a public hearing pursuant to notice, and (3) a state or local law requires the application of criteria established by law to the specific facts of the case. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — <italic>Appeal from Administrative Agency Decision — Scope</italic> <italic>of District Court Review.</italic> A district court may not, on appeal, substitute its judgment for that of an administrative tribunal but is restricted to considering whether, as a matter of law, (1) the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, (2) the administrative order is substantially supported by evidence, and (3) the tribunal's action was within the scope of its authority. 4. SAME — <italic>Appellate Court Review of District Court's Review of</italic> <italic>Administrative Agency.</italic> In reviewing a district court's judgment concerning the decision of an administrative body, an appellate court will, in the first instance, for the purpose of determining whether the district court observed the requirements and restrictions placed upon it, make the same review of the administrative tribunal's action as does the district court. 5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION — <italic>Project That May Affect Historic property —</italic> <italic>Considerations to Be Made by Governing Body.</italic> K.S.A. <cross_reference>75-2724</cross_reference> authorizes the governing body to take into consideration all relevant factors relating to a project that might affect historic property. This authorization extends to all those factors logically connected to the ultimate decision of whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the project and whether the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such historic property. 6. SAME — <italic>Project That May Affect Historic Property — Feasible</italic> <italic>and Prudent Alternative — Statutory Terms Construed.</italic> The terms "feasible" and "prudent" as they are used in K.S.A. <cross_reference>75-2724</cross_reference> are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning. 7. SAME — <italic>Project That May Affect Historic Property — Feasible and</italic> <italic>Prudent Alternative — Appellate review of Determination by Governing</italic> <italic>Body.</italic> In reviewing a determination of a governing body under K.S.A. <cross_reference>75-2724</cross_reference> that there is no<page_number>Page 75</page_number> feasible and prudent alternative to a proposed project that might affect historic property, and that the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such historic property, the ultimate question for appellate review is whether the governing body took a hard look at all relevant factors and, using plain common sense, based its determination upon the evidence.