Gardner does not argue that the zoning amendment was arbitrary or capricious. 4 . As we noted above, it is not clear from the record whether the amendment passed by the City Council differs from the Planning Commission’s recommendation. For the purposes of appeal from summary judgment only, we assume that the facts are as Gardner argues. 5 . We note that a city council’s statutory authority to amend a planning commission's proposal is not unbounded: the council’s amendments must not result in a land use decision that is arbitrary and capricious, see Utah Code Ann. § 10 — 9— 1001(3)(b) (1999); Springville Citizens, 979 P.2d at 336, and the public must have sufficient notice of the amendment contemplated. See, e.g., Naylor v. Salt Lake City Corp., 17 Utah 2d 300, 410 P.2d 764, 764 (1966) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Appellees argue that the Ordinance is
holding that any modification or amendment to an erisa plan can be supplemented or ap plied only after the amendment has been appropriately adopted in a formal complete and written form holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that any modification or amendment to an erisa plan can be supplemented or applied only after the amendment has been appropriately adopted in a formal complete and written form holding public had fair notice of adopted zoning amendment where uses permitted in adopted amendment were a subset of those permitted in the proposed amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel