Opinion ID: 889217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to consider post-hearing deposition testimony of members of the Commission.

Text: ¶ 20 On September 22, 2008, MM & I deposed Commissioners John Vincent and Jennifer Smith-Mitchell. Commissioners Vincent and Smith-Mitchell had voted against the proposed subdivision in June 2003, more than five years prior to these depositions. MM & I contends that it presented this deposition testimony to the District Court to establish that the Commission denied MM & I's subdivision application based on the Commissioners' own personal opinions and beliefs, and not on the evidence presented at the Commission's hearings on the matter. Citing Kiely Const. L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge, 2002 MT 241, 312 Mont. 52, 57 P.3d 836, the District Court declined to consider this deposition testimony because it was not part of the record. MM & I now contends that the District Court misapplied the Kiely test and thereby erred in not considering this deposition testimony because it would have shown that there was no evidence in the record to support the Commission's decision. ¶ 21 In Kiely, after the plaintiff's subdivision application was denied by the Red Lodge City Council (Red Lodge), the plaintiff appealed to the district court. The court determined that Red Lodge had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully in denying the plaintiff's application and ordered that Red Lodge conditionally approve the application subject to certain conditions recommended by the Carbon County Planning Board. Kiely, ¶ 18. Red Lodge appealed to this Court arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by refusing to admit the testimony of various council members to explain the individual members' reasons for the denial. Kiely, ¶¶ 93, 96. ¶ 22 We declined in Kiely to consider the after-the-fact opinions of the council members regarding the reasons for their denial of the subdivision. Analogizing the situation to that of post-enactment statements of legislators, we stated in Kiely that since the statements were not part of the record, they were not relevant and the court was correct in not considering them. Kiely, ¶ 97 (citing Slaven v. BP America, Inc., 973 F.2d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir.1992); Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. U.S. EPA, 886 F.2d 355, 365 (D.C.Cir.1989)). ¶ 23 MM & I contends that the deposition testimony in the instant case showed that the Commissioners abused their discretion by ignoring facts and evidence in the record and instead based their decision on their own personal opinions and beliefs. Thus, MM & I argues that the depositions were relevant and admissible under both Kiely and this Court's decision in Aspen Trails wherein we stated that `[i]t was appropriate for the District Court, in applying the [arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful] standard, to accept new evidence and not to limit its review to the administrative record.' Aspen Trails, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 808 (quoting Skyline Sportsmen v. Bd. of Land Com'rs, 286 Mont. 108, 951 P.2d 29 (1997)). However, MM & I's reliance on Aspen Trails is misplaced. ¶ 24 The developer in Aspen Trails submitted an environmental assessment (EA) of his proposed subdivision along with the subdivision application to the Helena City Commission. In addition, a report on the proposed subdivision was prepared by the City of Helena Planning Division (the Staff Report). Aspen Trails, ¶¶ 3-4. After reviewing the EA and the Staff Report and taking public comment on the proposed subdivision, the Helena/Lewis and Clark County Consolidated Planning Board (the Planning Board) voted to deny the subdivision application on the basis that the development's impacts on the natural environment, wildlife, and wildlife habitat could not be mitigated. Aspen Trails, ¶ 5. The Helena City Commission later voted to approve the preliminary plat after it determined that any detrimental impacts resulting from the subdivision could be mitigated with appropriate measures. Aspen Trails, ¶ 6. Thereafter, three neighboring landowners filed suit in the district court against the Helena City Commission challenging its decision to approve the preliminary plat. Aspen Trails, ¶ 7. ¶ 25 The district court held a one-day evidentiary hearing in the matter at which the landowners and the Helena City Commission presented testimony and evidence. Aspen Trails, ¶ 11. The landowners contended that the preliminary plat should be voided because the EA did not adequately address the resulting impacts from the proposed subdivision on the water quality of the Prickly Pear Creek and the Lake Helena watershed. The District Court permitted the landowners to introduce expert testimony supporting that contention. The landowners also contended that the Staff Report did not adequately address the environmental and community impacts arising from the subdivision on other water quality issues. Aspen Trails, ¶¶ 10-11. The Helena City Commission disputed these contentions arguing that the EA adequately addressed the impacts complained of by the plaintiffs, and that the conditions attached to the approval of the subdivision properly mitigated any adverse effects from the subdivision. Aspen Trails, ¶ 14. The district court subsequently voided the preliminary plat for the subdivision. Aspen Trails, ¶ 15. On appeal, we concluded that the district court did not err when it conducted an evidentiary hearing and received additional testimony regarding the adequacy of the EA. Aspen Trails, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 808. ¶ 26 Nevertheless, the testimony admitted in Aspen Trails was vastly different than the deposition testimony in the case sub judice. In Aspen Trails, the testimony was in the form of additional information from an expert witness regarding the condition of the subject property which was not contained in the EAinformation which should have been included by law. Aspen Trails, ¶¶ 55-56. On the other hand, the deposition testimony in the instant case concerned the Commissioners' thought processes regarding actions taken more than five years earlier and where at least one of the Commissioners repeatedly stated that she did not recall the specifics of the matter. ¶ 27 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the post-hearing deposition testimony of two of the members of the Commission.