27 . The Second Circuit recently noted, without deciding, that a split among district courts exists over whether the applicant or local government bears the burden of proof as to whether substantial evidence exists. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 496-97 (1999). However, the district courts, noted by the Second Circuit, that placed the burden on the government to establish substantial evidence did so either with no reasoning or simply by citing reasoning from an Iowa state court decision that found th to divine the intent of the council members in making their decision, but rather to look at the administrative record to see if substantial evidence exists. See City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768, 772, 122 Cal.Rptr. 543, 537 P.2d 375 (1975) (<HOLDING>). However, the court considers council members'
holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding plaintiff cannot depose council members about the intent in making a decision to deny a use permit application because such information is irrelevant to whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that the icaos decision should not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits