The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExtension of Time DocumentationWHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, G[GRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN E. DINIUa CHRISTOPHeR S. NVe CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER MERIDIAN OPPICE JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETeRSON 5700 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 200 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE WM. F. GmRAY, III ERICA S. PHILLIPa SUITE 31 D. SAMxeLJOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN NAMPA, IDAH083687-8402 POST OFFICE BO%1150 JaL S. Juaales TODD A. Ro55MAN TEL (208) 466-9272 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 LAR0.Y D. McoRe DAVID M. SWARTLEY FAX (208) 466-4405 TEL (toe) 288x499 WILLIAM A. MoaaoW 7eaaexce R. Wxlre'• Email' csn@whilepe(erson.com PAX (208) 285-2501 WILLIAM P. Nlcxols* Nlcxous L. WoueN •AL50 AoMITIPx M oa PLEASE REPLY TO ^AL50 ADMITTED H9 WA NAMPA OFFICE October 11, 2001 RECEIVED OCT 16 2001 Will Berg, City Clerlc City of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAAI 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian ID 83642 Re: Griffiths v. City of Meridian Supreme Court Docket No. Dear Mr. Berg: Enclosed please find copies of the following documents: 1. Motion for Extension of Time 2. Affidavit in Support of Motion for Extension of Time; 3. Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence; 4. Affidavit of John Mccreedy in Support of Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence; 5. Documents Filed sheet; and 6. Order Granting Extension of Time; and Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Christopher S. Nye Enclosures John McCreedy (ISB #3823) JIM JONES & ASSOCIATES 1275 Shoreline Lane Boise, Idaho 83702-6870 Telephone: (208) 385-9200 Fax: (208) 385-9599 Attorney for Petitioners IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ) PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL ) MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE ) CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND I-84 AT ) 520 S. EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ED BURTNER and MADELINE BURTNER, ) husband and wife; JIM CLARK and JAN ) CLARK, husband and wife; KAROLY ) HATVANI; GUS HEIN and STELLA HEIN, ) husband and wife; WES HOALST and ROSIE ) HOALST, husband and wife; DON ) HOLLINGSWORTH and ROBIN ) HOLLINGSWORTH, husband and wife; ) FORREST KEIRNES and LINDA KEIRNES, ) husband and wife; JOHN LAPOINTE and ) LANA LAPOINTE, husband and wife; CHRIS ) MUSTAFA and MARY MUSTAFA, husband ) and wife; STUART ROBINETTE and JACKIE ) ROBINETTE, husband and wife; ERIC ROHR; ) MEL SUTHERLAND; and RICK WILLIS ) and THORA WII.LIS, husband and wife, ) Petitioners. ) GLENN GRIFFITHS and TRESHA GRIFFITHS, ) husband and wife, JEFF ADDY and ) STEPHANIE ADDY, husband and wife, ) c~o~~r ~, J~ RECEIVE. OC? 16 2001 CITY OF MERTI7"L4,nJ Supreme Court No. 27559 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1 RON BENTZINGERand CHARLEY BENTZINGER, husband and wife; JEFF FUSS and NATALIE FUSS, husband and wife; JIM OWNBEY, SCOTT RUDDER and MADONNA RUDDER, husband and wife, and PATTY RUYF, Petitioners-Appellants on Appeal, vs. CITY OF MERIDIAN; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; and ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an Idaho non-profit corToration, Respondents-Respondents on Appeal. Pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 34(e), counsel for Appellants hereby requests an extension of time from October 5, 2001 to October 15, 2001, to file Appellants' Brief in this matter. This motion is supported by the Affidavit of John McCreedy. DATED this 3`d day of October, 2001. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3`d day of October, 2001, I served a true and corzect copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME by the method indicated below and addressed as follows: CHRISTOPHER NYE White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray P.O. Box 1150 Boise, ID 83680-1150 [ v~ U.S. MAIL [ ] Hand Delivered [ ] Overnight Mail [ ] Facsimile ROBERT BURNS Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett Rock and Fields, Chtd. P.O. Box 829 Boise, ID 83701-0829 [ t]~U.S. MAIL [ ] Hand Delivered [ ] Overnight Mail j ] Facsimile ~~! i~i1i~ t ~ t'Xi~'a. ;;~ JOHNMCC ' DY ~ } MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 3 John McCreedy (ISB #3823) JI1VI JONES & ASSOCIATES 1275 Shoreline Lane Boise, Idaho 83702-6870 Telephone: (208) 385-9200 Fax: (208) 385-9599 Attorney for Petitioners IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ) PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL ) MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE ) CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND I-84 AT ) 520 S. EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ED BURTNER and MADELINE BURTNER, ) husband and wife; JIM CLARK and JAN ) CLARK, husband and wife; KAROLY ) HATVANI; GUS HEIN and STELLA REIN, ) husband and wife; WES HOALST and ROSIE ) HOALST, husband and wife; DON ) HOLLINGSWORTH and ROBIN ) HOLLINGSWORTH, husband and wife; ) FORREST KEIRNES and LINDA KEIRNES, ) husband and wife; JOHN LAPOINTE and ) LANA LAPOINTE, husband and wife; CHRIS ) MUSTAFA and MARY MUSTAFA, husband ) and wife; STUART ROBINETTE and JACKIE ) ROBINETTE, husband and wife; ERIC ROHR; ) MEL SUTHERLAND; and RICK WILLIS ) and THORA WILLIS, husband and wife, ) Petitioners. ) GLENN GRIFFITHS and TRESHA GRIFFITHS, ) husband and wife, JEFF ADDY and ) STEPHANIE ADDY, husband and wife, ) ~.~ E RECEIVED OCT 16 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Supreme Court No. 27559 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1 RON BENTZINGERand CHARLEY BENTZINGER, husband and wife; JEFF FUSS and NATALJE FUSS, husband and wife; JIM OWNBEY, SCOTT RUDDER and MADONNA RUDDER, husband and wife, and PATTY RUYF, Petitioners-Appellants on Appeal, vs. CITY OF MERIDIAN; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; and ST. LUI{E'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an Idaho non-profit corporation, Respondents-Respondents on Appeal. STATE OF IDAHO ) County of Ada ) ss JOHN MCCREEDY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the attorney of record for Appellants in this matter and am competent to testify to the. matters stated herein. I am requesting an extension of ten (10) days within which to file Appellants' Brief. 2. Appellant's Brief is currently due on October S, 2001. 3. No prior extensions of time for filing Appellants' Brief have been requested. 4. The reasons why an extension of time is necessary are as follows: (a) My workload has been very heavy during the last three (3) months. (b) During the last month, a significant amount of time had to be devoted to a proceeding before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, entitled In Re Goodman Oil Company, et al., Docket No. RCRA-10-2000-0113. A four (4) day administrative hearing AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2 was held before Chief Administrative Law Judge Susan L. Biro on September 11 tlu~ough 14, 2001. Since that time, I have devoted a significant amount of time to Menyharth v. Mortensen Commercial Construction, Ada County Case No. CV OC 0004426D, and several other cases. I have ,begun work on Appellants' Brief; however, because of my responsibilities in other cases, I have not had sufficient time to complete Appellants' Brief. 5. On today's date, I filed with the Supreme Court an Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence in this matter. 6. An extension of ten (10) days is necessary, which would make Appellants' brief due on October 15, 2001. 7. There is no written stipulation of the parties for this extension of time. However, Respondents' counsel has been consulted and they have indicated that they have no objection to a ten-day extension. 8. A ten-day extension would allow me to devote the time necessary to complete Appellants' Brief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before r~e'this 3rd day of October, 2001. s°s°3e~~~ 3asaoo~ ~~~a~~a i ~(J~ 9 as "h~ °~'~~ 'y 'v. 3 a rv3 • 33 ` '~ ~ x,33 tea' 9J~, .n 99)0Otl]3 ~ ~~~ ~d9 e~~~ 3 ~ ~~ _a'1j3~ ~_ ~J NOTARY PUB OR IDAHO Residing at Meridian, Idaho My Commission Expires: 6/15/06 AFFIDAVTp IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3`d day of October, 2001, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME by the method indicated below and addressed as follows: CHRISTOPHERNYE [,.~ U.S.MAIL White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow [ ] Hand Delivered & Gigray [ ] Overnight Mail P.O. Box 1150 [ ] Facsirile Boise, ID 83680-1150 ROBERT BURNS [ .~]'! U.S. MAIL Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett [ ] Hand Delivered Rock and Fields, Chtd. [ ] Overnight Mail P.O. Box 829 [ j Facsimile Boise,ID 83701-0829 lt,~t~~~~~~ JOHN ~GICCRE~DY f , :~~" ~~ AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 4 John McCreedy (ISB #3823) 3IVI,IONES & ASSOCIATES 1275 Shoreline Lane Boise, Idaho 83702-6870 Telephone: (208) 385-9200 Fax: (208) 385-9599 Attorney for Petitioners IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ) PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL ) MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE ) CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND I-84 AT ) 520 S. EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ED BURTNER and MADELINE BURTNER, ) husband and wife; JIM CLARK and JAN ) CLARK, husband and wife; KAROLY ) HATVANI; GUS HEIN and STELLA HEIN, ) husband and wife; WES HOALST and ROSIE ) HOALST, husband and wife; DON ) HOLLINGSWORTH and ROBIN ) HOLLINGSWORTH, husband and wife; ) FORREST KEIRNES and LINDA KEIRNES, ) husband and wife; JOHN LAPOINTE and ) LANA LAPOINTE, husband and wife; CHRIS ) MUST'AFA and MARY MUSTAFA, husband ) and wife; STUART ROBINETTE and JACKIE ) ROBINETTE, husband and wife; ERIC ROHR; ) MEL SUTHERLAND; and RICK WILLIS ) and THORA WILLIS, husband and wife, ) Petitioners. ) ) GLENN GRIFFITHS and TRESHA GRIFFITHS, ) husband and wife, JEFF ADDY and ) STEPHANIE ADDY, husband and wife, ) C~GGJ~ RECEIVED OCT 16 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Supreme Court No. 27559 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVII9ENCE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 1 RON BENTZINGERand CHARLEY BENTZINGER, husband and wife; JEFF FUSS and NATALIE FUSS, husband and wife; JIM OWNBEY, SCOTT RUDDER and MADONNA RUDDER, husband and wife, and PATTY RUYF, Petitioners-Appellants on Appeal, vs. CITY OF MERIDIAN; CITY COUNCIL OF ) THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; and ST. LUKE'S ) REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an ) Idaho non-profit corporation, ) Respondents-Respondents on Appeal. ) Petitioners, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-5276 and Idaho Appellate Rule 30, apply for leave to present additional evidence to the Idaho Supreme Court. I. BACKGROUND This is an appeal of a decision by the Meridian City Council (Council) issuing a conditional use permit (permit) to St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, Ltd. (St. Luke's) to construct a hospital in Meridian, Idaho. Petitioners are the owners of residential-lots located in the Montvue subdivision immediately north of St. Luke's complex. Among other things, Petitioners assert that the Council's decision should be set aside and remanded for further proceedings because the Council violated Petitioners' due process rights. Petitioners' due process arguments include: (1) the Council failed to consider the transportation goals and objectives set forth in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan; (2) the Council failed to adopt specific findings and conclusions on the transportation and traffic standards contained in Meridian's Zoning Ordinance; (3) the Council failed to confine its decision to the agency APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 2 record produced at the public hearings; (4) the hearings before the Council were not free from partiality, impropriety or prejudgment; and (5) Petitioners were not provided with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence relates to Petitioners' fourth and fifth due process arguments. It is important to understand that the Council and the Dishict Court relied heavily on a report issued by the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) on St. Luke's application. The Council submitted St. Luke's application to the ACRD Commission for consideration of the traffic and transportation related issues. Agency Record (AR), pp. 301-311. A public meeting was held before the ACRD Commission on August 11, 1999. AR, p. 301. Petitioners submitted written comments to ACRD, including an opinion from their traffic expert, Pat Dobie of Dobie Engineering, Inc., that existing and future traffic conditions on Eagle Road warrant requiring St. Luke's to dedicate adequate right-of-way for public access to Eagle Road. See, AR, pp. 210-212; and Exhibit 11 to tfie testirnorty of Jo1an McCreedy submitted on behalf of the Montvue Subdivision Residents to Meridian Planning mui Zoning Commission on August 31, 1999. ACRD Staff fully recognized the extreme traffic hazards faced by the Montvue residents. AC)=ID's report, dated September 8,.1999, contains the following findings: Since that time the traffic on Eagle Road has increased significantly, thus making left toms into/out of the Montvue Subdivision very difficult. ~** Traffic is now anticipated to exceed LOS E for typical five-lane roadways under the level one access control. Right-of-way reservation for frontage roads and roadway improvements should be implemented to allow Eagle Road to maintain its function and to carry the exceptional volume of traffic that is expected. In order to accommodate the traffic generated from this site and future development along Eagle Road, staff recommends that a median be APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 3 constructed in Eagle Road from the Eagle Road/I-84 interchange to Franklin Road as the second level of access control. The median should be constructed to eliminate left toms at the eighth-mile driveways and street approaches. In future phases of corridor protection, a frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road should be constructed from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's driveway to provide those parcels affected by the median access to full access intersections to Eagle Road. ACRD Report, p. 3, 9[ D and p. 4, 9[ H (AR, pp. 307-308) (enxphasis added). Ina "Special Recommendation" to the City of Meridian, the ACHD Conunission acknowledged that St. Luke's development and the potential for redevelopment in the area "will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road." The ACHD Commission recommended that a median be constructed in Eagle Road "from the Eagle Road/I-84 Interchange to Franklin Road" and that the median "be constructed to eliminate left toms at driveway and street approaches at every location except the St. Luke's signalized driveway." ACHD Report, p. S (AR, p. 309). Despite recommending that "the only public street access that Montvue Subdivision has to the public roadways" be eliminated, ACRD Report, p. 3, 9(D (AR, p. 307), the ACHD Commission refiised Petitioners' request that St. Luke's be required to dedicate adequate public right-of-way to serve the Montvue Subdivision. Instead, the ACHD Commission merely "encourage[d]" St. Luke's to work with ACHD to determine a location for cross access to the Montvue Subdivision. ACHD Report, p. 5 (AR, p. 309). Not surprisingly, Meridian's Planning and Zoning staff acknowledged that the Montvue Subdivision "needs adequate public access to handle future development of this property as planned for in our Comprehensive Plan." AR, p. 226 (errxp/iasis in original). Meridian's planning staff recommended that St. Luke's be required to "dedicate right-of- way for a future public road along the north property line, to include stub sheet access to the APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 4 property line." AR, p. 227 (emphasis in original). Similarly; Meridian's Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) recognized the need for adequate public access to the Montvue Subdivision, and recommended that St. Luke's application be approved subject to the requirement that St. Luke's "dedicate 200 ft. of its existing driveway with signalized intersection eastward from Eagle Road as a public right-of-way." AR, p. 121. The Council approved St. Luke's application without any requirement that St. Luke's dedicate public right-of--way to serve the Moatvue Subdivision. AR, pp. 64-92. The Council, and ultimately the district court, relied heavily for their decisions on the report issued by ACRD. In its findings and conclusions, the Council stated that: "[t]he Ada County Highway District has reviewed the subject application and has not required dedication of a public road, but rather recommended voluntary cooperation on the part of the applicant to provide a location for cross access to Montvue Dr." AR, pp. 69-70. In its decision affirming the Council, the District Court quoted heavily from ACHD's report. R., Vol. II, pp. 236-238. The problem is that ACHD's report on St. Luke's permit application is the product of agency bias, prejudice and prejudgment. II. A12GiJP~IENT A. Leave Should Be granted To Present The Additional Evidence. Idaho Code § 67-5276 (2001) provides the basis for the Supreme Court to take additional evidence of procedural irregularities before the agency, That section provides as follows: (1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency action, and that: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 5 (a) there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may remand the matter to the agency with directions that the agency receive additional evidence and conduct additional factfinding. (b) there were alle ee d irregnlarities in procedure before the ~ency, the court may take proof on the matter. (2) The agency may modify its action by reason of the additional evidence and shall file any modifications, new findings, or decisioris with the reviewing court. Before the District Court, Petitioners sought to obtain evidence of procedural irregularities that occurred before the ACRD Commission. On May 21, 2000, several months prior to oral argtrment before the District Court, Petitioners filed an Application for Leave to Conduct Discovery and Present Additional Evidence. R., Vol. I, pp. 41-~0. Petitioners alleged that procedural irregularities occurred before the Council and the ACRD Commission. Id. Petitioners requested permission to conduct discovery to determine whether St. Luke's engaged in off-the-record discussions with members of the Council and the ACRD Commission. Id The District Court denied the motion on April 19, 2000, concluding that, although evidence existed showing that one ACHD Comrnissioner encouraged people to lobby the other ACHD Commissioners, there was not a sufficient showing that people were encouraged to lobby the Council members. Tr., p. 2, ll. 17-25. On July 5, 2000, after the Idaho Supreme Court issued its decision in Preservation Council v. City Council, 134 Idaho 651, 8 P.3d 646 (2000), Petitioners sought leave to conduct limited discovery to determine whether ex parte communications not disclosed on the agency record occurred between St. Luke's and members of the Council. R., Vol. I, pp. 67-86. On September 20, 2000, the District Court granted Petitioners' request for ]eave to conduct limited discovery. Tr., pp. 5-6. However, no discovery was conducted in this case APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 6 regarding whether ex parte communications not disclosed on the record occurred between St. Luke's and the ACHD Commission. In other lawsuits, the deposition of Dave B. Szplett was taken on January 25, 2001, and the deposition of Marlyss Meyer was taken on July 12, 2001. See, Exhibits A aracl B to the Affidavit of John McCreedy in Support of Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence. David Szplett is a former transportation planner for ACHD, and Ms. Meyer is a former commissioner for ACHD. Evidence obtained during those depositions shows that agency bias and prejudice occurred in the proceeding before ACHD on St. Luke's application. The testimony of Mr. Szplett and Ms. Meyer shows that Petitioners did not receive fair and impartial treatment by the ACRD Commission. Regarding Pat Dobie, Petitioners' expert witness, Mr. Szplett testified at his deposition: Q. Were you aware during your time at ACHD of any official or unofficial policies to treat Mr. Dobie's work in the form of traffic studies differently from traffic studies submitted by other individuals? A. Am I allowed to pass on a question? Q. No. But I didn't have Mr. Dobie come today to make it easier for you to answer. A: Heather, I really don't want to answer the question because I'm not sure how it affects the rest of this procedure. But I swore to tell the oath, and I'm going to tell you that there are a lot of hard feelings at ACFID about Mr. Dobie. And my reviews of his work have been much more stringent than they are of the other people's work at the direction of Larry Sale and Terry Little. ~Tm Q. Have you ever been instructed by Mr. Sale or Mr. Little or someone else at ACHD to scrutinize an individual assessment very carefully because Mr. Dobie is involved in the assessment? APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 7 A. Yes. Af~zdavit of John McCreedy ire Sarpport of Application for Leave to Present Additional Eviderace, Exhibit A (Deposition of David B. Szplett, p. 223, ll. 8-24; p. 224, 1. 24 - p. 22~, 1. 3). At her deposition, former Commissioner Meyer testified regarding the ACHD proceedings on St. Luke's application as follows: Q. Do you know if any of the other commissioners received any contacts from outside sources? A. Through comments of other commissioners, I have season to believe that they did but, again, I don't know the specifics of any time or how, though. Q. What comments and who made them and when? A. At the time I remember in the work session I was very frustrated because I felt this is Mr. Bivens' district and I didn't feel he was representing his people. He had referred that he had visited with the fine gentlemen at St. Luke's. ~~~ Q. Did Commissioner Bivens indicate that he had met with the fine gentlemen from St. Luke's? A. I don't recall him saying that he had met with them: I iust recall him sing he talked with them. Whether it be on the telephone or a meeting. I don't think - Q. Did he indicate what had been told him during the conversation? A. The information that I exchanged with him, there was a history to St. Luke's apparently that they had some agreements with ACRD prior to our being commissioners at the time and, basically, where they were going so he knew quite a bit of the history about it that had not been presented to us in any of the presentations So where he got that history I don't know, but that was pretty much what the discussion involved. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 8 Affidavit of John McCreedy in Support of Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence, Exhibit B (Deposition of Marlyss Meyer, p. 9, 1. 19 - p. 10, 1. 5; p. 11, 1. IS - p. 12, 1. 6) (emphasis added). Commissioner Meyer was asked whether the Montvue residents received a fair hearing before ACRD. She testified: A. I think fair is subjective to the commissioner that's viewing it. But, frankly, I don't feel they were given fair treatment. Q. Why is that? A. Basically, I think that the Chair at the time was very short in allowing their presentation. She was short with Mr. McCreedy. There was bias comments made in work sessions prior to these individuals coming forward. Q. Stop for just a minute there. What do you mean by bias comments being made? A. Oh these people don't know what they're talking about and they didn't want it a lone time ag_o why did they chance their minds now. more derogatory statements made by Commissioner Den• on these individuals and never those type of comments about St Luke's. I felt that the individuals were cut short in their time allocation. Just how they were handled. I was, frankly, embarrassed to be a commissioner of how they were treated at the presentation. ~*;: Q. Did you get the impression that he [Commissioner Bivens] was favorable to the Montvue residents or unfavorable to the Montvue residents during the work sessions leading up to these meetings? A. Personally, in my opinion, he was unfavorable towards the Montvue and very biased towards St. Luke's. Q. How did you get that impression? A. Again, by comments being made in work sessions, the willingness to represent -the comments were all more positive for St. Luke's versus the Montvue. Basically, it's adone-deal attitude. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 9 :~::<~ Q. When you indicate that they had their minds made up, would that be before the presentations by both sides were made on the issue at the public meeting? A. I think so because, again, it would be depth that we would go into it at the work sessions on Monday's prior to. Deposition of Marlyss Meyer, p. 14, 1. 16 - p. I5, 1. 10; p. 16, ll. 14-25; p. 18, ll. 2-8 (emphasis added). Commissioner Meyer described the other Commissioner's attitude toward Petitioners' expert witness as follows: A. Mr. Pat Dobie, I think, was the individual that represented Montvue. Commissioners did not like this individual at all Thev would make statements to that effect ~u know they would almost mock him before then came in. They didn't do that on the people on Ballentine. Q. Which one of the commissioners would do that? A. Commissioner Huber Commission Den iust did not like Mr. Dobie at all. Again, they were just so considerate to the individuals, the homeowners and general public that would come in on the Ballentine Road and, on this situation I iust don't feel the~were Qiven fair time or even listened to. Deposition of Marlyss Meyer, p. 26, il. 6-19 (emphasis added). The "appearance of fairness" doctrine is applicable to administrative agencies. In Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Concededly, a `fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.' In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Tlus applies to administrative agencies which adjudicate as well as to courts. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 579, 93 S. Ct. 1689, 1698, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). Not only is a biased decisiorunaker constitutionally unacceptable but `our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.' In re Murchison, supra, 349 U.S., at 136, 75 S. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 10 Ct. at 625; cf. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, X32, 47 S. Ct. 437, 444, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927). Id., 95 S. Ct. at 1464. The "appearance of fairness" doctrine was well sununarized in Hayden v. City of Port Townsend, 28 Wash. App. 192, 622 P.2d 1291 (Wash. App. 1981): The appearance of fairness doctrine, as it has developed, has consistently been applied to quasi-judicial land use decisions. The doctrine appears to have first evolved in this context. Smith v. Skagit Coccnty, 74 Wash. 2d 715, 4~3 P.2d 832 (1969). The core of the doctrine announced in Srnitli and repeated often is that hearings to which the doctrine applies must not -only be fair in fact, but must appear to be fair and to be free of an aura of partiality, impropriety, conflict of interest or prejudgment. Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wash.2d 858, 480 P.2d 489 (1971). As the Supreme Court pointed out in Chrobuck, the nature of the zoning process warrants considerable effort to protect it from an appearance of impropriety. Id., 622 P.2d at 1293-4 (emphasis added). Without question, Petitioners did not receive fair treatment before the ACHD Commissioners. The deposition of Commissioner Meyer establishes that Commissioner Bivens had ex paste discussions with St. Luke's representatives, and that Cornnvssioners Bivens and Den were biased against the Montvue residents and prejudged the pemvt application in favor of St. Luke's. The depositions of Dave Szplett and Commissioner Meyer establish that ACRD Commissioners Bivens and Den were biased against Petitioners' traffic expert. Respondents will likely argue that the proceedings before ACRD are irrelevant and, in any event, Petitioners did not seek judicial review of ACHD's report. These arguments are misplaced. The Local Land Use Planning (the Act) does not grant ACHD the authority to take final agency action on St. Luke's permit application. Rather, that authority is given to the Council. Idaho Code §§ 67-6503, 6504 and 6512 (2000). Pursuant to the Act, the Council APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 11 has adopted the A/Ieridian Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance). The Plan and Ordinance require the Council to consider and make findings on transportation and traffic related issues, including preserving and protecting future transportation corzidor rights-of--way. Plan, p. 54; Ordinance, Meridian City Code § 11-17-3: E., G. and H. See, Exlsibits A and B included in Agency Record pursuant to Order filed April 24, 2000. The ACRD Commission, however, has exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of-way within Ada County. Idaho Code § 40-130(1) (Sapp. 2001). ACHD is responsible for the design, construction, reconstruction and maintenance of rights-of-way within Ada County. Idaho Code § 40-1415(1) (1998). The Council and ACHD, therefore, share jurisdiction on the transportation and traffic issues associated with land use applications. The Council routinely submits pernut applications to ACHD for review and comment. The Council then receives from the ACHD Commissioners a written report of findings and recommendations. That is what happened in this case. AR, pp. 301-311. The ACRD Commission recommended that a future public right-of-way not be dedicated, Id., and the Council relied upon the ACRD Conunission's recommendation when it also denied dedication of the public right-of-way. AR, pp. 69-70. In essence, the ACHD Commission acts as the proxy or agent for the Council on transportation and traffic issues. It follows that improprieties that occurred before the ACHD Commission are relevant to and impacted Petitioners' due process rights. The Act, however, does not grant Petitioners a right of judicial review regarding ACHD's findings and. recommendations ou St. Luke's application. See, Idaho Code § 67- 6521 (2001). The only way for Petitioners to challenge improprieties before ACHD is to do APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 12 so in the context of their appeal of the Council's decision. The District Court did not allow Petitioners to conduct discovery regarding improprieties that occurred before the ACRD Commission. Evidence obtained after issuance of the District Court's decision, however, clearly shows that Petitioners' due. process rights were violated when at least one (1) of the ACRD Commissioners engaged in ex parte communications with St. Luke's and two (2) ACRD Comrissioners were biased against Petitioners and their expert witness and prejudged the application in favor of St. Luke's. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that leave be granted to submit to the Supreme Court additional evidence in the form of the depositions of Dave Szplett and Commissioner Meyer as attached to the accompanying Affidavit of John McCreedy. DATED this 3`d day of October, ?001. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3'~ day of October, 2001, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE by the method indicated below and addres~ as follows: CHRISTOPHER NYE [ :~_]' U.S. MAIL White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow [ ] Hand Delivered & Gigray [ ] Overnight Mail P.O: Box 1150 [ ] Facsimile Boise, ID 83680-1150 ROBERT BURNS [ a~U:S. MAIL Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett [ ] Hand Delivered Rock and Fields, Chtd. [ ] Overnight Mail P.0. Box 829 [ ] Facsimile Boise, ID 83701-0829 rr ; JOHN MCCREEDY ~ ~ +/ ~: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 14 IDAHO SUPREME COURT Clerk of the Courts ;208) 334-2210 IDAHO COURT OF APPEALS OCTOBER 3, 2001 P. O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0107 RECEIVED CHRISTOPHER S. NYE 5700 E FRANKLIN ROAD STE 200 NAMPA ID 83687-8402 DOCUMENTS FILED Docket No. (App) 27559 (Res) GRIFFITHS, GLEN V. CITY OF MERIDIAN OCT 16 2001 / ~ C1TY OF MERIDIAN ADA DC Docket # 99061990 Be advised that the following documents were filed in this office on October 3, 2001. (1) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. (2) AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN McCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. B02/03220 D04A/ JF 16:36:20 For the Court: FREDERICK C LYON Clerk of the Courts 4 ~'iu 1\% II John McCreedy (ISB #3823) JIM JONE5 & ASSOCIATES 1275 Shoreline Lane Boise, Idaho 83702-6870 Telephone: (208) 385-9200 Fax: (208) 385-9599 Attorney for Petitioners IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND I-84 AT 520 S. EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ED BURTNER and MADELINE BURTNER, husband and wife; JIM CLARK and JAN CLARK, husband and wife; KAROLY HATVANI; GUS HEIN and STELLA HEIN, husband and wife; WES HOALST and ROSIE HOALST, husband and wife; DON HOLLINGSWORTH and ROBIN HOLLINGSWORTH, husband and wife; FORREST KEIRNES and LINDA KEIRNES, husband and wife; JOHN LAPOINTE and LANA LAPOINTE, husband and wife; CHRIS MUSTAFA and MARY MUSTAFA, husband and wife; STUART ROBINETTE and JACKIE ROBINETTE, husband and wife; ERIC ROHR; MEL SUTHERLAND; and RICK WILLIS and THORA WILLIS, husband and wife, Petitioners: RECEIVED OCI ~ 6 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Supreme Court No. 27559 AFFH)AVIT Or JOHN MCCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFFIDAVIT OF 70HN MCCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 1 GLENN GRTFFITHS and TRESHA GRIFFITHS,) husband and wife, JEFF ADDY and ) STEPHANIE ADDY, husband and wife, ) RON BENTZINGERand CHARLEY ) BENTZINGER, husband and wife; JEFF FUSS ) and NATALIE FUSS, husband and wife; JIM ) OWNBEY, SCOTT RUDDER and MADONNA ) RUDDER, husband and wife, and PATTY ) RUYF, ) Petitioners-Appellants on Appeal, ) vs. ) CITY OF MERIDIAN; CITY COUNCIL OF ) THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; and ST. LUKE'S ) REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an ) Idaho non-profit corporation, ) Respondents-Respondents on Appeal. ) STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada ss JOHN MCCREEDY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am counsel of record for Petitioners and make this affidavit based upon my own personal knowledge. This affidavit is submitted in support of Petitioners' Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of an excerpt of the Deposition of David B. Szplett taken in Dirk Dunham Construction v. Ada County Highway District, Ada County Case No. CV OC 0005122D. Mr. Szplett's deposition was provided to counsel for Petitioners by the law firm of Davison, Copple, Copple &Copple, LLP. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN MCCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 2 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and acciuate copy of the Deposition of former ACRD Commissioner Marlyss Meyer taken in Griffiths, et al. v. St. Luke's Re~ioual Medical Center, Ltd., et al., Ada County Case No. CV OC 0001797D. ~',,.. JOHN SUBSCRIBED. AND SWORN to before me~lrrs 3i° day of October, 2001. ~ gna ne P9R~^P Rp,~' . ~~@~ ~~cJT~~~ `'"' ~ NOTARY PUBLIC IL~d IDAHO '~ ^ ^~~- e ;~ = Residing at Meridian, Idaho '- ~'Ur71_,~C~ ~F My Commission Expires: 6/15/O6 ~ n !~ q, 'Y '' ^Rnc° f ~ i ~'1 nFn + ~' `~~'~ - ~ ~tnh ~. L~ i C);RTIFICATI; OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3`d day of October, 2001, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN MCCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE by the method indicated below and addressed as follows: CHRISTOPHER NYE White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray P.O. Box 1150 Boise, ID 83680-1150 ROBERT BURNS Moffatt. Thomas, Ban~ett Rock and Fields, Chtd. P.O. Box 829 Boise,ID 83701-0829 [ ~]~ U.S. MAIL [ ] Hand Delivered [ ] Overnight Mail [ ] Facsimile [~ U.S. MAIL [ ] Hand Delivered [ ] Overnight Mail [ ] Facsimile JOHN MCC EDY AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN MCCREEDY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - 3 W.H. DAMSON (7878-1964) ,_ FRANK DAMSON (1907.7984) R.H. COPPLE (1919-1995) E DON COPPLE TERRY C. COPPLE JON R. COX HEATHER A. CUNNINGHAM JAY M. GUSTAVSEN TERRI R. PICKENS ED GUERRICABEITIA ~3A~~ai~3 ~o~~L~9 ~:aPPLE ~ ~:i)PPLE9 LLB ATTORAiEY5 AS LAYV SUITE 6W 199 N. Capitol Blvtl. i`30ISE9 IDAHO August 3, 2001 Mr. John C. McCreedy 7orles & Associates 1275 Shoreline Lane Boise, ID 83702 Dear Mr. McCreedy: TELEPHONE (20B) 342-3658 FAX (208) 386-9428 hf [pY/wwrv.daviso ncopple. com MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1583 BOISE, IDAHO 83701 Thank you for forwazding the transcript of Marylss Meyer. Enclosed please find the pages of the deposition of Dave Szplett where he says he was told to treat traffic studies done by Mr. Dobie differently than traffic studies submitted by others. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Very Truly Yours, i ~' Heather A. Cunningharrt/ Enclosures EXhilBll' A TO I`1CCREEI~Y AFFIDAVIT' ~'~ Ire the District Coaart of the Faurth Judicial ®istrirt of the State Of ldah0, in and fcr the County Of ~~a DIRK DUNHAM CONSTRUCTION, an Idaho corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic corporate of the State of Idaho, Defendant. Case No. CV OC 0005122D ~~~®Si~~N ~F ®Fi~~D ~. SZi('LE~' i~~L~ ~I January 25, 2001 Reported by Frances Morris CSIL No. T-190 _TNE REAITIME CODRT REPORTE0.5 0 a A_ND ASSOCIATES, LLC - 208345.3704 • 1.800.424.2354 Fax 208~345~3713 605 WEST FORT STREET P.O. BOri 1625 • BOISE. ID 83701 Home Page: htlp://vrmwluckercoudreporters.corr~ EMail: tucker6luckercourfreporters.com Realtime CoseVievr/Livercta Pdationwide Cole Mano~,~emeM nusmess riiaE;un~s ~~-~~~y ~~~~~ ~u•~•.~~ ~u a3~7ill1""cdlLl v^u. HtRUl ~,d_~asaaly nnn~1a19'a~ vsaaa 3a.a State a~3datao, Ftttart~iJatcJflc3a1, Aala~otaatty ~_. _~ ~..._r ____ ,j<aratnary 25, 2003 Page 222 qi1 check, 1z1 (IlriefrecessJ C31 THE WITNESS: Could you please reread the t41 question to me so I can answer it correctly? is~ (The last question was read) ~sl THE WITNESS: It appears that about 70 m percent of the individual assessments were ~B1 submitted by Mr. Dobie.The other 30 percent or 1s1 so were conducted by Earth Tech. l[ appears [hat. liol there no substantial reductions in any of them, n9 and I don't remember anything being treated Itzl dffferen[ly in any of this list.The only two teal elements that were treated somewhat differently twt were the Micron Technologyprant expansion.and the [tsl Meridian Family Center. In the Micron one there ttsl was a lot of special issues because it's a nr1 regional generator close to the freeway and so on. net AndACHll deferred discussion on [hat until other per issues could be resolved.And the fee credits are 1zo1 only part of it.Tha[ was submitted by Earth tzil Tech. izzl The other one that was treated specially tzar was the Meridian Family Center which was also a tzar regional attiactor on the state highway and had 1zs~ this impact fee credit calculation concern that we Page 223 t9 have raised many times.That was conducted by 1z1 Dobie. 1al So the only two on this list that 141 appears to have been treated differently are those 1st two, and one was by Dobie and one wasn't. So it tst would appear that Dobie's individual assessments m are not treated any differently. 1s1 l'i: Were yott aware during your tune at ACHD 1s1 of any official or unofficial policies to treat 1,01 Mr. Dobie's work in the form of traffic studies nil differently from traffic studies submitted by~ ~tz1 outer individuals? [tat A: Am I allowed to pass on a question? n41 ~: No. But I didn't have Mr. Dobie come ns1 today to make it easier for you to answer. nsl A: Heather, I really don't want to answer p~ the question because I'm not sure how it affects per the rest of this procedure. But I swore to tell ns1 the truth, and I'~m going to tell you that there Izo1 are a lot o and feelings at ACHD about tztl Ivlr.Dobie.An my reviews of his work have been X221 much mare smngenE than they are of the other 1za1 people's work at the direction of Larry Sale and 1z41 Terry Little. tzsl Q: Personally as an engineer have you found Page 224 19 Mr. Dobie's work to warrant any higher level of ~z1 scrutiny than work submitted by other engineers? 1a1 A: I will say that iti~lr. Dobie's much more 141 aggressive in defending the rights of his clients tsl than some of the other ones. But I don't think fs1 his work is any lower quality to justify the more Al stringent treatment. He just submits more of te1 them. ~e~ Q: From a technical standpoint have you had 1to1 any reason to question his abilities as an 1ii1 engineer? nz1 A: In my engineering profession, just as in pal your law profession, there is more than one way to p41 interpret things. Dlr. Dobie and I have often ltsl disagreed about issues, but we have always managed 1ts1 to resolve them. Sometimes I think he's wrong; 1i>! sometimes he t}tirilts I'm wrong. But generally we pet solve [item. hs no different from any other 1is1 engineer around. We are still good friends and 1zo1 have even written professional papers together. ~xt1 So I see nothing directly to cast dispersions on 1zz1 6~Ir. Dohie, other than his aggression on behalf of 1za1 his client. 1z41 ~: Have you ever been instructed by lzsl Mr. Sale or Mr. Little or someone else at ACHD [o _- Page 225 p~ scrutinize an individual assessment very_carefully 1zl because Mr. Dobie is involved in the assessment? nl A: Yes. 141 ~: What direction were you given in that 1sl regard? 1e1 A: Just be very careful of his numbers and - ftl to challenge anything outside of the norm. ter Q: Who gave you that direction? tsl A: Terry Little and Larry Sale. ~to1 Q: Were those the words that they both ~tt1 used, generally speaking? pzl A: Certainly the idea that they both used. liar Q: Do you recall any.spe~c instances or p41 comments in that vein made by either of them? ~~sl A: Not specific, no.I've been gone from ns1 there fur six months, and I had been there for 1+t1 seven and a half years. So I think after some pet time there I knew what they wanted. I knew my ttel instructions.Ofren my reviews of Dobie's work (zo1 were subject to a second review in Mr. Litt1e's tztl deparunent. izzl D: How does the procedure work after you do ~za1 your review? Do you report your findings or ~z41 recommendations to Mr, Sale? ~zs~ A: By my work, you mean individual 'Ittcker & Ass;oclates (208) 345-3704 ril:n-U-~rs3~t® (7) Pa:ao 222 - Page 225 f STATE OF IDAHO County of I, David B. Szplett, being first duly sworn on my oath, depose and say: That I am the witness named in the foregoing deposition, taken on December 12, 2000, consisting of pages numbered ] to 205, inclusive; That 1 have read the said deposition and know the contents thereof; that the questions contained therein were propounded to me; that the answers to said questions were given by me, and that the answers as contained therein (or as corrected by me therein) are true and correct. ~R~~~ DEPONENT Signed and sworn before me this day of , 2001. ~6p0oe~amae~na ~~ ,~ ~a®~ ~ '~-~ _ NOTAR IC ® '~s ~`+~ ~bTA~Jp' `~ Residing ~ * 1a-J1~ o~~ _ ~U/4.aG My commission expires ~+~~ ~~, ~ q~ ~t ~ Job No. 1 1781 /~ '7 NAME: CHAPIGE/CORRECTIOP7' SI3EET PAGE LINE _- READS: SHODI,D BE: REASON: 1 ~ L/ OR/YUJVVCCi (A/YLO~u Gc~ n z 7 3 3 I l 10 ~ i ~~ g~~ ~.Yt~,ct~ze J c ~ ~n a~n-e 8 2 ~~A~ ~zc~ze~ ~"" rte- ~~c~"`ed? 3~ ~{ S~ ~~ ~ I 9~ 1c~~ S ! z3 ~ ~~ .P~,,.,- ~~ ~ cn~ ~ r.~,~~,~.Q ~ ~~ ~~- 2 I ~-( ~ T'~-~ AP 1~ TUCfCER AMD ASSOGATES 605 West Fart Street F t ~®I~TER'S CEIt°TIFICAI`E STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) 1, Marta M. Rice, a Notary Public, in and For the State of Idaho, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined, the witness named in the fore- going deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place therein named and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction, and that the foregoing transcript contains.a full, true, and verbatim record of the said deposition. I further certify that I have no interest in the event of the action. WITNESS my hand and seal thisa~~day 200. ~ A ~ '°~ lil A . l r ' ~' ~j~ NO AR UBLIC in and for the'State of ~®,~,~r ~ residing at Boise, Idaho. # as * My commission expires 11-22-2005. y, Av®LlG CSR No. T-205 A ~ °~ a~TB OA I~ P~ `°~ ~11E ~I~1~T~ STATE OF IDAHO ) County of ) I, David B. Szplett, being first duly sworn on my oath, depose and say: That I am the witness named in the foregoing deposition, talten on January 25, 2001, consisting of pages numbered 206 to 243, inclusive; That I have read the said deposition and know the contents thereof; that the questions contained therein were propounded to me; that the answers to said questions were given by me, and that the answers as contained therein (or as corrected by me therein) are true and correct. ~~~~ DEPONENT Signed and sworn before me this ~ day of -~ifj-~e~ , , 2001. TA ~ IC ~ C ~~ 00000u~nrh0 Residing t ~,•~C, ~~~ ~~,p °., My commission expires 'c i n ~A~s~ .I.l ~ a 106 NO. ~ ~9~7 1 Yt yam+° ~p,~ TB 04 :~~,• 9!0...1100000 . NAME CHANGE/CORRECTION SHEET PAGE LINE READS: SHOIILD HE: REASON: v L~"r Z l l i~ f~ u ~. ~. i~ M ~~.~.~,~ Z~l Zo '' i ~ Z 1.3 ~ GarD~zUM Goo~T~UN Z! /~ FO~rNC- ~cr~D v~~aE~-raz y~RE~roR o~-rN pea-~D ZG9r' ~3 77~~ SALBS `RULE RS SArz~S BOLL /}S TUCKER AND ASSOCIATES GQ5 West Fora Strut STATE OF IDAHO ss. County of Ada I, Frances Morris, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined, the witness named In the fore- going deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place therein named and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction, and that the foregoing transcript contains a full, true, and verbatim record of the said deposition. I further certify that I have no interest in the event of the action. Wf['NFSS my hand and seal this ~U~ay o~0~K1~G~ 2001. ` ~,o~"~E~~•"~•.,,,, NOTA Y PUBLIC in and'•for the State of Idaho; / =pTgR ® •,, residing t Boise, Idaho. `` ~~ ~ ~" My commission expires 09-01-2004. - ' ~ ~ ~' ; ~ = CSR No. T-190 ~~. F ,,. ~N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA j GLENN GRIFFITHS and TRESHA GRIFFITHS, husband and wife; RON BENTZINGER and CHARLEY BENTZINGER, husband and wife; JIM CLARKE and JAN CLARK, husband and wife; JEFF FUSS and NATALIE FUSS, husband and wife; WES HOALST and ROSIE HOALST, husband and wife; DON HOLLINGSWORTH and ROBIN HOLLINGSWORTH, i husband and wife; ERIC ROHR; SCOTT ! RUDDER and MADONNA RUDDER, husband and wife; PATRICIA RUYF; MEL SUTHERLAND; and RICK WILLIS and THORA WILLIS, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. ST. LUKENS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an Idaho non-grofit corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. i DEPOSITION OF MARLYSS MEYER JULY 12, 2001 BOISE, IDAHO ~. ~~ t~ 1~ .~ r-, i ivIr. Jones _ ..~~ .._~; -_._ __ . Suzanne Gribbin, 1 /_ r r .`'Vs-~~` ~__~_c i'S- n"~~~- CSR Case No. CV OC 0001797D EXI-IIBI1' B 1"O MCCREEDY AFFIDAVIT' DEPOSITION OF t1PRLY55 MEYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2801 1 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUOICIPL DISTRICT 2 OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PAA 3 GLENN GRLFFITHS mid TRESHA GRIFFITHS, 1 4 husband and ulfe: RON BENTZINGER and I CHARLET BENTZINGER. husband and ul Fe: 1 9 JIN CLARKE end JPN CLARK, husband and 1 ulfe: JEFF FUSS mid NATAL IE FUSS. 1 6 husband mid ulfe: VES HOPLST and ROSIE I HOPLST. husband and wife: PION 1 Case No. 7 HOLL INGSVORTH and ROBIN HOLL INGSwORTH, 1 CV OC 00017970 husbmld and ulfe: ERIC ROHR: SCOTT I 8 RUDDER and t1ADONNA RUDDER. husbmld and I wife: PATRICIA RUYF: fEL SUTHERLAND: 1 9 and RICK VILLIS and THORA VILLIS. 1 husband and ulfe. ~ 1 10 I Pla lot lFfs. 11 vs. 1 12 ST. LUKE'S REG IONPL tti=DICPL CENTER. 1 13 LTD.. an Idaho non-orof It coraoret loo: I m:d JOHN DOES 1-10. 14 Defendants. 1 19 I 16 17 DFCnsITION OF M~LYSS I'EYE R 16 JULY 12, 2001 19 BOISE. IDPHO 20 21 22 23 24 29 2 1 DEPOSITION OF tIARLYSS MEYER 2 BE IT REfffJ~EREO that the tlePOSltlon of 3 Mar Lrss Meyer was taken br the attorney for the 4 Plalnt lffs. at the Leu Dfflces of Jlm Jones B 9 Assoc fates. Located et 1275 Shore Llne Lurie. Boise. 6 Idaho, before Suzmme Grlbbin. a Court Reoorter Ildaho 7 Cert if led Shorthand Reoorter Number 72161 and Notary 8 Pub Llc In and for the County of Ada. State of Idetlo. on 9 Thursday. the 12th day of Ju Lr. 2001. ctlnonenclna et the 10 hour of 1:30 m. m. In the Pbove-ant It Led matter. 11 12 13 A°PEARANCES: 14 Far the PLalntlffs: JIM JONES 6 ASSOCIATES Bra Jim Jones 15 1275 Shore floe Lane Boise. Idaho 63702-6070 i6 For the Defendants: MOFFAT7 THOMAS BPRRETT ROCK 17 a FIELDS. CHTO. Br: Robert Burns i6 101 5. CaDltot Bou Levmd 10th Floor 1°. P.O. Box B29 Boise. Idaho 63101-0629 20 21 Also Present; Treshe Grlfflths 22 Patrlcle Rurf 23 24 25 BURNHPM. HABEL ®ASSOCIATE 3 1 INDEX 2 t1ARLYSS tEYER PAGE 3 Br: th. Jones ~ 4 4 5 Pr. Burns 51 6 7 lNa exhlblts marked.) 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 4 1 whereupon the demasltlan proceeded as 2 fo LLOws: 3 4 fIWiLY55 fEYER. 9 e witness havlna been first dv lr scorn to to LL the 6 truth. the i~ho le truth. mid nathlne but the truth. 7 testlfled as foLLows: 6 9 IXPTIINATION 10 BY FN. JONES: 11 0. would you state tour name for the record. 12 olease7 13 A. Mar Lrss Meyer. 14 0. Are you the Mm~Lrss Meyer that ues on the 15 Ade County Hlehuar Olstrlct In 19997 16 R. Yes. 17 0. when did roc eo on the Hlahuar Dlstrlct7 16 A.. 1 took office January of '99 aid served 19 thrweh '99 mid 2000. 20 O. I tie It that at the time the St. Luke's 21 mollcetlan was considered -- I'm 0olna to hand tau a 22 coot of It -- In Julr and Puaust of 1999 you were e 23 member of the Commiss lon4 24 A. That's correct. 2S 0. The doculm..nt 1 hmlded you Is Edllblt 1 5. INC. - 208-345-5700 DEPOSITION OF t1ARLY55 t1vYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2881 5 ~~ 1 which represents ACHO's final action on the St. Luke's 2 mollcation. You recognl ze that document: do rou not? 3 A. It Looks faml li ar. res. 4 D. Vlth regard to the meetlna that took piece S on Ju lr 28th, do row recall. br am chance, the meetlna 6 on that date es far as It pertains to this Issue? 7 A. I recall havlna a meetlna reaardlna both 6 St. Luke's old tbntwe and havlna Indlvldua Ls there. 9 B. Perhaps I can help rou a LlttLe bit. I'm 10 going to hand row chat Is marked es Exhl6lt 71 and ask 11 If row can Identify those minutes? _ 12 A. Yes. this Looks Ll ke a cppr pf our minutes 13 from Ju lr 28th. 14 0. As I understand It, the gist of the 15 minutes Is that the matter came uo For conslderatlon 16 end then action on the matter was de tared for a coum Le 17 of weeks? 16 A. That's correct. 19 0. Oo row recall what occurred at the meeting 20 with ream~d to that Item, whr It was that It ues 21 de Lared7 - 22 A. I'm trying to think. It seems Llke there 23 needed to be some additional Information provided and I 24 think, vsua LLr, we uou ld have a tle Lay so we cow Ltl 25 actually Let more Indlvldua LS come forward with 6 1 Information and testlFr. 2 0. I was rwtlc lna In the first mermrmh that 3 dee LS with that Issue end talks about Steve Prno Ld 4 recolmiended certain changes. Then It said In the third 5 sentence there he further recommended that the cross 6 access easement be reoulred to Nontvue Subdlvlslon. Oo 7 rou recall that occurc ing7 6 A. I do. 9 0. Vhat was your reco LLectlon of what 10 fr. Arno Ld had recommended? 11 A. At the tine? chat I had been Informed that 12 there was an ear Ll er tll~ when St. Luke's and tlontwe 13 were work lne pn some stuff mid they weren't Interested 14 In cross access. But staff came back due to the 15 chmaes belna made and he recommended that the chmges 16 be made Iri the easement and that uou Ld allow the 17 tbntvue Subdlvlslon yes ldents, as I receLL, to have 16 easement onto St. -Luke's Road. This was reconmw_nded, 19 the changes were recommended. In order to et low the 2B residents not to have to have direct access onto Eea Le 21 Roatl. 22 0. It was the Idea of staff at that time 23 that, rather than havlna the exlstlna access that they 24 had directly onto the road, they should be able to go 25 through the traffic lleht at SY. Luke's? BURNHPYI. HABEL a ASSOCIA 7 1 A. That's correct. Ve had kind of a 2 ohl Lospphy-that we were pushing for to where. rather 3 than aoln9onto main arterials. that they could ao onto 4 other access roads. Vherever new deve looment or 5 existlna. wherever we cow Ld, ue would try to use that 6 ohl LosmhY. 7 B. Pnd that was the ohl losoohr that was B fair Lr routine Lr mall ed br PLHD at the tlnx:7 9 A. Yes. 10 0. l1o row know whr It was not moll ed In this 11 Dart lcu ter sltuatlpn7 12 A. Honest tr. L have no Idea whr the 13 commissioners voted It down. There was never am real 14 -- ue really tried to ao with staff recomnendatlon mid. 15 In most cases. they uou Ld go with staff 16 reconmendatlons. But. honest tr. al this one 1 can't 17 speak for the other commissioners. 18 0: Old It seem unusual to row that there 19 would be a departure from the normal po Ll cr In this 2B case? - 21 A. Thar would depart from oo Llcr from time to 22 time. But. yeah. If that was the phi Wsoohr end the 23 missl on of the Commission, rou know. the utt lmete 24 auestlon. whenever we departed from that It uou Ld be 25 auestloned. 8 1 0. Vlth regard to those businesses on the 2 west side of the road, are rou evare es to whether the 3 ohl losoohr was molted that .papa le who estab Ll shed 4 businesses on the west side should sort of funnel their 5 Eae le Roo] traff lc through the Llght7 6 A: If I receLL. I think there was a hotel 7 spina In. several service areas and same businesses. 6 that was the Idea. to try to out them all onto one 9 co Llector that Bald onto Em Le Road. 1B 0. 0o row know If the Commission had mr 11 oo Llcr at the tine -- this wov ld be In June. Ju Lr and 72 August of 7999 -- with regard to contacts br third 13 parties to Lobby For or malnst na-tlcuLar eaenda 14 Items? 15 A. As far as the actual po llc Les In place for 16 that ihlyd-party Wbbrlna. 1 think the opal of 17 different cpmmissloners was Just that, different. I 18 know ue uou Ld try to work with our const ltuents and 19 talk to the constituents. If there was mlr additional 29 comments out there, I think It was asked that It be 21 relayed to the Conn lsslon at that point In time, but I 22 don't thl nk ue had anything exact Lr In olg'e that 23 prohibited am type of contact. 24 0. Vas It the preference to have comments for 25 w eaelnst oertlcu Lar agenda ItenS submitted to the i. INn- - PmR-345-57mm OEPOS ITIUN OF fIARLY55 I'EYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2891 11 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 19 11 12 13 14 75 16 17 18 19 28 21 22 23 24 29 CommI5510n In Wrltlne7 A. Not that I recall. If a commissioner wanted to talk to somebody then could do that. If that Individual wanted to contact their comnl ssloner then could do that. It was necessarl Lr apart of mine. D. Some of the commissioners dltl actua LLr call peep Le and talk to them about matters that were coming w on the agenda for a vote? A. Thar would make comment. I couldn't sat If they Inltl ated the cells or what they did. But there uou Ld. be comments made that that talked to so end so or who Initiated the calls. I tlon't know. o. Old row have am contact from anybody direct Lr outside of the oub Llc meetings with reaa~d to the St. Luke's app llcatlon that came up first on Ju Lr 2B. 1999, end then on Auwust 117 A. No. not outside In the oub Llc meetlnas. mr on Lr contact was with staff. 0. Bo row know If am of the other conmisslpners received ~r contacts from outside sources? A. Through camnents of other commissloners. 1 have reason to be Lleve that that did but. esaln. I don't know the spec if lcs of am time or how. though. D. Vhat comments and who made them and when? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 28 21 22 23 24 25 A. At the time 1 remember In the work session 1 was very frustrated because I felt this Is tti•. Blvens' dl strict antl 1 tlldn't feel he was represent log his people. He had referred that he had visited with the floe sent lemen of St. Luke's. D. The floe gentlemen or -- A. He Just sold the Flne sent lemen. that's how he referred to them. At the time I felt It was kind of a bless because I hadn't heard am contacts of the residents out at St. Luke's. Again. the activities through the Comnlss ion. there uou Ld be different comments made that staff bed to eked to cart eln Indlvlduals From St. Luke's. Hou they re Wred that Informal ion to the different commissioners cow Ld vm~r. D. Vhlch staff wow ld that be: do row retell? A. I'm trrlna to recall. It uou Ld be -- the staff that was usua llr there uou Ld he the deve Lopment staff. the Legal staff. orettr mluch Just along those Ll nes. 1 think Steve A^no ld had had contact with I ndlvldua Ls. D. At St. Luke's? A. Yes. 'He had made a comment he bed talked to papa Le from St. Luke's. D. And aotten Input from them on this mpLlcat ion or on what? BlN2NHAM. HABEL a ASSBCIATE 1 A. Yeah. usually an e~h of the goo Ll cations 2 then usually made contact with the Indlvldua Ls 3 Involved. 4 8. Vlth reaard to Comm ssloner Blvens' 5 comment. do you know when that ua57 Vou Ld that have 6 been before action was taken on the moll cation an 7 Puaust 11th? 8 A. Nr taco LLect Ions -- ue had several 9 meet Ines out at St. Luke's for the Treasure VaLLer 19 Futures end It Just seems Llke It was probeb Lr In 11 between -- I'm remembering when Nr. McCready uou ld 12 test) Fr end It seems like comina uv to the actlpn on 73 the 11th there had been some dlscusslon of haw ue were 14 solos to handle that action as It came before us. 15 8. Old Cammissloner Blvens Indicate that he 16 had met with the floe sent Leman from St. Luke'S7 17 A. 1 don't recall him sating that he had met 1B with them: I Just recall him sating he talked with 19 them. Vhether It be on the to Lephone pr a meetln®. I 20 don't think -- 21 D. Dld he Indicate whet bed been to Ld him 22 dur lyre the cpnversatlon7 23 A. The Information that I exchenaed with him. 24 there was a hlstorr to St. Luke's epaarent Lr that then 25 bed some agreements with ACHD prior to our bellre 1 comnl ssloners at the time and. baslca LLr. where then 2 were solos so he knew pulls a bit of the hlstorr about 3 It that had not been presented to us In am of the 4 presentations. So where he sot that hlstorr I don't 5 know. but that was orettr much what the dlscusslon 6 Invo Lved. 7 D. So he had knowledge of hlstorr with rasa d B to 6t. Luke's that had not come through the staff? 9 R. Right. Ve LL. again. 1 don't know If the 18 staff gave It to him but It had not been presented to 17 me es a commissloner. There were some comments that 12 the tlontvue Indlvldua Ls never wanted this In the 13 beelnning and that was lone before our term cane bout 14 and a ll tt Le bit of hlstorr about that and what their 15 plans were and those kind of things. Vhere I sot mr 16 InFOrmatlon was from him on that. 17 D. Vas he kind of shepherding this or was he 18 kind of the Lead conenlssloner an this oroJect7 19 A. No. I don't think so. Aealn. I was 28 frustrated because I felt this was his district arld I 21 didn't see am real aortic loatlon or concern of his 22 residents or his constituents on that. Ve also had a 23 ohl Losophr where ue treed to Look at the safety of the 24 residents. ue tried to Look et safety of aLL our 25 Intersections. those kind of things. mid basically no i. INC. - 289-345-5788 DEPOSITION OF tIARLY66 fffYER TAKEN ON JULY 12, 2881 13 1 one was talc lnm a lei on that. I felt. except mrse Lf. 2 D. It didn't seem that the other 3 commissloners were concerned about the safety Issue? 4 A. It didn't come up like I wow Ld have 9 expected It to. In mr op lnlon, no. I didn't see their 6 concern because It's an Issue I did brine up In work 7 session end pub Llc meetlne and It didn't seem to be a 6 concern. 9 0. Oo rou,knou If am of the other 10 comnlssl ~~ers net on this emonast themse Lves outside of 17 the Dub Llc meetlnm7 12 A. I honest [r don't know. But I do knpu 73 there have been vlo Letlons of meetlnes hetueen 14 commissloners aid `there have been moor a time there 15 were serleL meetlnes ampne them and that was somethlne 16 I often comp Lal ned about. A coup Le of times 17 Commlsslpner Blvens wow Ld refer me to check with i6 Comm lssloner Derr on some of the sltuatlons out there 19 aid that's where he aid I uou Ld kind of get In this 28 hit. I uou Ld say: It's. roar dlstrlct. It's not her 21 dlstrlct. It's your dlstrlct where. I think. the 22 concern show Ld come from and that's uhr I'm talk lna to 23 you on It. 24 D. I took Conmissloner Blvens' depos ltlon 26 this mornlne and he Indicated then It was not his 14 i dlstrlct. It was Comm ssloner Huber's dlstrlct. Do you 2 know For sure wYtlch comml ssloner had that area? 3 A. To mr reco Election. It was Dave because I 4 thought Commissloner Huber's started at Overland Road 9 and this was br Frank lln and Eee le Road and mine 6 stooped at CLoverda Le aid his began old It stooped at 7 Overland. Un Less there was a Little somethlnw 6 seoarete, I arettr mach considered that to be his 9 dlstrlct. 10 D. You sat throueh the hearlnm an Ju lr 26, 11 7999. end then the head n9 on August 11. 1999. and I 12 ewers there was a subsequent meetlne on /wmust 29 In 13 which a motion for reconslderatlon came up. what was 14 tour observat tan as to whether the hontwe residents 15 received a Falr hearlnw In this matted i6. A. I think fair Is suhJect lye to the 17 comnl ssloner that's vleulnm It. But. frank Lr, 1 don't 18 feel they were mlven fair treatment. 19 D. why Is that? 20 A. BaslcaLLr. I think that the Chair at the 21 time was very short In elloulnm their oresentatlon. 22 She was short with Mr. hcCreedr. There were bias 23 cononents made In work sessions prior to these 24 Indl vidua LS cominw forward. 25 D. Stop for Just a minute there. whet do you 19 1 mean br bias comments beinm made? 2 A. - Oh. these papa Le don't know whet they're 3 to Lklnm about and then didn't want It a Lane time moo. 4 uhr did they chanme their minds now, more deraeetorr 9 statements made br Comml ssloner-Derr on these 6 Indlvldua Ls and never those true of comments &out 7 St. Luke's. I fe Lt that the Indlvlduefs were cut short 6 In their time aLLocatlon. Just how they were hand tad. 9 I was, frank Lr, eld~arrassed to be a commlssloner of how 10 they were treated at the oresentatlon. 11 D. And that treatment was br who? 12 A. I feel br the chair at the time. 13 0. And that was? 14 A. Commissioner Peavey-Derr. Aealn. I have 19 to add that 1 don't think whoever their representetlve. 16 whether It be Commissioner Huher or Comnlssloner 17 Blvens. there was never am oresentatlon br them to 18 come forwad to represent their constituents aid their 19 constituents' concern. In that war. I always felt-that 20 we rearesented the oeoo le end ue were the voice of the 21 oeoo Le at these work sessions end you won't find ~r 22 uork session minutes that reflect am oresentatlon br 23 am of them. 24 D. There was some claim made br one of the 29 tlontvue rest dents. Tresha Griffiths who Is slit ins 1 rleht here. that durlne the Ju lr 28. 1999 meeting 2 - Comm ssloner Blvens to Ld her that this was the time to 3 eat access throueh the llaht IF they ever wanted It. 4 How Ld that have been a Falr statement to make? 9 A. I think so. I think with whet was eolnm 6 on and ell -- first of all. It was needed old. 7 second Lr. ul th everrthlne else that was eolne on In 6 deve looment and stuff that was a eood time. 9 O. Old Commlsslaner Blvens ever make a 10. comimnt Llke that. to tour reco llectlon. In the work 11 sessions Leadlns uo to the conslderatlon In Dub llc 12 session? 13 A. I honest Lr don't recaLL, sorry. 14 D. Bld you eat the Ilroresslon that he ues 19 fevor~Le to the tlontvue residents or unfavorab Le to 16 the iSpntvue residents durlne the work sessions Leadlne 11 uo to these meetlnes7 16 A. Persona LLr, In mr opinion. he was 19 unfavorable towards the hontvue aid very blared towards 2B St. Luke's. 21 D. How did you eat that Il~mresslon7 2P A. Aealn, br comments below made In work 23 sessions, the ulLllnaness to represent -- the comments 24 were alL more positive for St. Luke's versus the 26 tbntvue. BaslceLlr. It's a tlone-deal att ltude. INC. - 2BB-345-5788 DEPOSITION OF t1ARLY66 tEYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2991 17 1 D. Dld rou have the Imaress ion based an tour 2 observations that It was a tlone deaL7 3 A. I'm kind of Independent that war. We're 4 stl LL fair lr new cammlssl ~~ers In '99 and we're stILL 5 Learning on the Le~nlnw curve and was very dependent 6 on staff and we were very dependent an the elder 7 commissioners at that point In time. Some of the wars 6 that. I think. thlnws were handled, I can't speak for 9 them. but I'm never a done-deal true of commlsslpner so 19 mr perception cow Ld be different than what theirs are. 11 Aealn, I speak for mrse Lf on that not 12 knowinw chat theirs Is. I think when there's Issues of 13 passion. Ica LL It passion because rou have a Lot of 14 Indlvldua Ls Invo Lved, that we show Ld have been more 19 committed to have more Input and dlscusslon with those 16 Indlv ldua is end I repeatedly wow Ldask for that In work 17 sessions but then didn't wank to do that. 16 when rou have Issues that are so 19 controversial. I think the Conm lsslon has e 20 Lrsponslbl Lltr to slue It more time ~ more 21 commitment. when that didn't want to do that on 22 Dart lcu Lay protects, It had been mr emerlence that 23 that prat tr much had their minds made w. 24 D. when rpu sat they, you're talk low about 25 the othercomml ssloners7 18 1 A. Yes. 2 D. when tau Indicate that then had their 3 mends made up. uou Ld that be before the presentations 4 br both sides were made on the Issue at the pub Lic 5 meetlnw7 6 A. I think so because. ~aln, It would be 7 depth that we uou Ld eo Into It at the cork sessions on 6 flondars prior to. 9 D. with reward to this partlcu let Issue In 19 the work session that proceeded the Ju lr 29th pretlnw. 11 do rpu recall what Issues were discussed durlnw that 12 work sesslan7 13 A. I hpnest Lr don't retell am motor Issues. 14 Staff uou ld brief-us on what's comine forward, 15 basically, swain the Ju Lr 28th one. Thar wow Ld to LL us 16 that ue have Indlvlduals frpm both sides cominw to 17 test lfr and brief Lr whet the concerns from both sides 16 uou Ld be but not a Lot of motor dlscusslon br the 19 commissioners. 29 D. Do rpu reca Ll havlnw am meetlnw wl th the 21 Meridian Cltr CounclL between ACRD and the Nerl dean 22 Citr Covncl L In which this Issue was dlscussed7 23 A. I honestly don't. I know ue met with them 24 but whether this Issue was discussed I honestLr don't 26 reca LL. 9URNH/d1. NPBEL ® A5: 19 1 0. when rou were Lopklnw at materla is In 2 order to prepare rourse Lf for the twp meetlnws. Ju lr 3 26th end Pvwust 11th, did rou Look at ahr pf the staff 4 Informatlon that had been prepared are or to the time 5 that rou had the conslderatlon7 6 A. Yeah. I aLwars would revl ew the staff 7 Information that then uou Ld slue us. 6 D. Do rpu ever reca LL Looklnw at Informatlon 9 developed put of the Eaw Le Road /ticess Control 9tudr7 19 A.. Yes. I do. 11 D. I'm showlne rpu what's marked as ExFllblt 12 3. That appears to be en excerpt from that document. 13 Have rpu seen that cover sheet hefore7 14 A. Yes, many times. 16 D. I take It then that what you're serlnw Is 16 that rpu had looked at that document before rpu cent In 17 to the meetlnws and made tour decision on the Issue? 76 A. Yes. 79 D. Do rou know whether that document was 20 wenerallr oval lab le to the other comnl sslaners7 21 A. Each of the commissloners had been when a 22 coat of this. we all had that In our fl Les. It was 23 when to us at one point In time. I don't recall If 24 staff handed those out 'to us. I don't recall staff 25 handlnw these out to us awaln In am of the meet Ines 29 1 tau refer to on the 26th or swain on the 11th. but we 2 all had acress to this as sort of our po llcr. 3 One of the debates -- end we often refer 4 to this someYl mss -- one of the debates ue h~ on E~Le 5 Road was hou much access. rpu know, po lots to the 6 Intersections and, swain. hou muchdlrect access onto 7 Eaw Le Road versus Frontawe roads below bul Lt, those 6 kind of thlnws. 9 I]. What was the Iswe with reeerd to frontaee 19 roeds7 11 A. I u~ted them and nobody a Lse did. There 12 was some dlscusslon that, maybe, someday they mleht be 13 hue lt. There was debate amonw the Commission as far as 14 I was an advocate to keep low ~ emressuar. we had a 15 church appllcatlon that was cominw onboard that had 16 direct ~cess onto Eaw Le Road. some of these thlnws. sa 17 ue h~ -- there was a push to try to decide are we 16 6olnw to do frontawe road, If we do Let's do them now. 19 are ue wolnw to have access onto Eew Le. Road. Let's make 20 same of these determinatlons. 21 But the Commission was Inconsistent as to 22 which ones -- there was kind of a push to wet the 23 Commission to decide whether ue were wolnw to be 24 looklnw and plannlnw on front~e roads or we were waln8 25 to be eLtoulnw different app Llcat Ions to have access INC_ - ]99-745-5799 DEPDSI TION OF fIARLY66 I'LYER TAkEN ON JULY 12. 2@@1 21 1 dlrect lr onto Eagle Road. 2 D. Nhr was It des grab Le to have the frontage 3 roads? 4 A. That was orettr much mr des ire because I S fe Lt verr strong Lr to keen Eagle Roed as an emressuar 6 and then row would have thpsefrpntage roads to allow 7 bus lnesses to have access mid Local movement on those B roads and keen the emressuar eolne onto Eae Le Road. 9 If we weren't going to have am frontage roads. then ue 1@ wouldn't have that In the planning and the expense and 11 eat those on the agenda. If ue were 9oing to allow 12 dlrect access. we needed to make those detarminatlpns 13 where rather than random app llcatlon. 14 D. The Idea Is to kind of funnel the traffic 15 pn each side to certain central points that wow Ld be 16 sublect to a control llehti 17 A. Again. It goes back to when ue uou ld have 19 cross access on am of these app Llcet Ions antl try to 79 get them pn coLLector roads that would feed them Into 2@ the Light. 21 D. Nhen row made rour determinatlon on these 22 Issues. had row had or lvr to the wishes pf the Idaho 23 Department of Transportation as to whether or not It 24 upu Ld be deslrab le for the Montvue residents to have 25 access to the traffic Llehti 22 1 A. Hpnest Lr. I don't recall DOT's. It you Ld 2 probab Lr come through staff. 1 do recall that Eae le 3 Road Is basically a state road and not ar ACRD road and 4 belne a state highway or a state road, again. the 9 conmlon sense was to try to vut them through the Lleht. 6 But I don't recall DOT's. 7 D. I'm going to shov row Exhlb It 9. I 6 be Lleve ttNS cmiw_ up at the th lyd meetlne on 9 redonslderatlon. Trice a look at that. 1@ A. Okay. 11 D. Are row aware of whether anyone from the 12 staff or am gne ~of the conlm lss loners. prior to the 73 actlpn tdcen an Pueust 11 of 7999, had contacted the 14 Idaho Transportation Department to obtain their Input 19 with regard to whether or not to have the rwntwe 16 traffic funne Led through the St. Luke's Llght7 17 A. Can row repeat the puestloni If staff or 18 who had cpntact7 19 D. Had mlrone. el Cher the cammlssloners or 20 ACHD staff, contacted the Department of Transportation 21 to bet their recommendat Ions or Input? 22 A. I honest Lr don't know If staff or anrhodr 23 did. Dave Blvens was our representat lve working with 24 DOT to be a L19ISOn hetueen them mid the Cpmmlsslon. 29 Aral n, I would have ermected him. If this Is ar Issue. BURNHMI, HABEL a A56 23 1 that he uou Ld have contacted them and reported back to 2 the Cpmmisslon. 3 D. Since the Issue did Invo Lve DDT, aou Ldn't 4 It have been narmaL pract ice or prudent practice, 9 either one, to have contacted the Transportation 6 Department end Bald. "what's rour take on this°7 7 A. I think so. I think IF It's their road ue B definite lr should have had them Involved. 9 D. As I understand It. Just readlne the 1@ minutes of the August 11th meeting. Commissioner Blvens 11 Bars he further noted that this Is a state and or hate 12 road and encouraged the rest dents to accept the offer 13 of 6t. Luke's. Dunne his deposition this mprning. 14 Commissioner Blvens Bald that the Comm lsslon did not 15 have Jurlsd lctlpn over the light end over Egg Le Roed. 16 end therefore, In effect. It was a Ll tt le bit beyond 17 PCHD's abl lltr to reaulre access. IF that were the 1B case. upu Ld It not have been prudent to so Llc It ITD's 19 Input? 2@ A. I think It uou Ld have been verr prudent to 21 so Llc It ITD's Input but that was not how the Cpmmlsslon 22 operated. He did do a lot of cork on access on State 23 Street which Is a state highway road. I think It would 24 be verr Inconsistent to say that ue uou ld not hmld Le 25 Eagle Road because, again. ue had app Llcat Ions before 24 1 that asked for access mid they're talk Ina shout putt lrm 2 a Light on Executive Fier or Plne which uou Ld eo Into 3 those. So ue.mmiaged the ll ehts end ue mmlaged that 4 situation and that's for the verr reason that both 5 St. Luke's end tbntvue had come to ACRD. 6 D. Isn't It true that ITD has given PCHD sort 7 of a green Lloht to consider and decide those Issues on B e delegated baslsi 9 A. That was mr understanding at the time that 1@ ue had an agreement orettr much with them that ue uou Ld 11 be hand tine that. Again. It wasn't Just on Egg Le Road. 12 It was on soli other state hlehwers. 13 D. It uou ldn't have been unusual far ACHD to 14 mdse a decls Ian Llke the fbntvue residents were asking 15 to have made mid that Is to reaulre access to the Ll ght i6 for their subdlvlslon7 17 A. No. that would not be unusual. 18 D. You had Indicated In those same minutes 19 or, 1 guess, row were recorded as Indicating she stated 2@ that It's almost Llke we're Forgetting a neleltiorhpod 21 and expressed her concern for the safety Issues. 4hat 22 was rour main cpncern there? First of all, Is that a1 23 a.curaie ref lectlon Df what row sold and, second Lr, If 24 so, whet were rour concernsi 29 A. The minutes were kind of a summary so I INr_ - PAR-3G5-57AA DEPOSITION OF tIARLY99 rEYER TAKEN ON JIRY 12. 2881 29 1 uou ld guess It kind of sunmarizes mr opinion. I euess. 2 et the tlnk?. Vhether It's accurate, aealn, It's a 3 summary. hr concerns. aealn, were I dl dn't Feel that 4 the constituents were belne Ll stened to or represented. 5 Aealn. Just Huber or. Blvens didn't present anrthlne 6 based for them. Definite Lr, the concerns of saFetr for 7 those Indlvldua ls, we're forclne them out Into ~ area B that. to mr emerlence and mr knou Ledge. et the time we 9 had never tlone that to anybody else. Ve uere des line 10 with an Issue on Be LLent lne end State Street at that 71 time that was very slml ley to. this. I fe Lt, and ue were 12 hand ll na that one totally different that we were 13 hand Ll na this one. 14 Both on the aeneraL aub Llc and Indlvldua Ls 15 on State Street. at the Llehts. It's Just cpmmon sense 16 with our philosophy of access on the co LLectors to feed 11 Into thearterlals with a ahl Lospphr that .we're 1B supaosed to hold, a misslon that uere suaoased to 19 hold. on pub Llc safety first. Ve weren't fo lloulne our 20 misslon and I Just didn't feel those people uere belne 21 represented fair Lr at aL L. 22 O. Vhen rpu say then were being treated 23 different Lr than a similar situation on State Street 24 how was that? 29 A. The Issue. I think, with Ballentlne old 27 1 oaerate In terms of the ahl Lpsoph lcaL approach the 2 Commlsslon uou Ld take to other app Llcatlons both prior 3 to end after. 4 D. Do you think that It wow Ld be necessary 5 for a comnl ssloner to reed the traffic study In order 6 to eat a Fu IL picture of chat the sltuat) on was? 7 A. 1 think air studies that uere presented at B the time show Ld have been thoroueh Lr reviewed and 9 discussed br the Cpmnlsslon aid they weren't. I think 10 both sides. at the time. presented traffic studies and. 11 oftentimes. the Commisslon was very dependent on staff 12 to slue them the answers rather than actually Lpoklne 13 throueh the documents and really sett lne down aid 14 hand Llna the work sessions to thoroueh Lr discuss the 15 Issues. 16 D. You Indicated that Commissloner Blvens had 17 made the comment about speaklna with the floe sent Leman 16 from St. Luke's. Dld ~rhodr else Indicate that they 19 had am third party or outside contacts? 20 A. I was trrlna to remember. It seems Llke 21 Conmissloner Derr made a conment that she had wprked 22 with 6t. Luke's on soma other protects when she was a 23 county commisslpner aid Just some side comments like 24 that but nothlna direct Lr re Lated to her work with them 25 to tbntwe. 26 1 the commissioners uere ra LLr lne behlned that Is the 2 eeneral pub llc cow Ld come In and they uere Looklne at 3 all alternat Ives, studies had been done, those kind of 4 things they uere ul Ulna to do there to out the Llaht 9 In. 1 didn't see that occurrlna In this sltuat ion. 6 IM. Pat Bob le. I think, was the Indlvldua) that 7 represented hantvue. Commissloners did opt like this 8 Individual at all. Thar uou Ld maYe statements to that 9 effect. you knou, Cher would almost mock him before 10 they came In. Thar didn't do that on the oeoo Le on 11 Ballentlne. 12 0. Vhlch one of the conm lssloners uou Ld do 13 that? 14 A. Commlssloner Huber. Commlssloner parr Just 19 did not Llke th. Doble at all. Analn. they were Just 1 D. Old air of the comnl ssloners. other that 2 Commissioner Blvens. aopea~ to have Infprmatlon that 3 was not furnished throueh the stafF7 - 4 A. That uou Ld be herd for me to answer 9 because then did have Information and I dl dn't know 6 whether It was the history, far Instance. that 7 Commisslpner Huber had or Commissloner East Lake had as 8 the hlstprr of belne commlssloners or how It ues 9 presented so 1 really can't answer that. 10 D. Do you know where Comm ssloner East Late 71 stood on this Issue as far as between the Ju lr 28th 12 meetlna and the August 11th meetlre7 13 A. I honest Lr don't recall. 14 rPi. JONES: I be Lleve that's all I've sot. 19 ERAI1INATION 16 so considerate to the Indlvldua LS, the home owners and 17 aeneraL pub llc that would come In on the BeLlentlne 18 Road end, on this sltuat ion. I Just don't feel they 19 were slven fair time or even listened to. 20 D. Vlth regard to this E>dllblt 3, the Eaa Le 21 Road Access Control Study, In your estimation did that 22 document have Information that uas pert lnent to the 23 hbntvue-St. Luke's sltuat lon7 24 A. I think It does because, aaaln. tbntwe 25 Involved pretty Hoch how the entire Eea Le Road wow Ld 16 BY fR. BURNS: 17 B. tG. 1'~rers. mr Hama Is Bob Burns and I'm 10 the attorney for 9t. Luke's. I want to make sure that 19 1 understood some ofrour testimony. Dld you test lfr 20 that there uere no rules In place br the Ada County 21 Nlehuar District that prohibited a comnlssloner from 22 speaklna with members of the pub Llc or an applicant 23 tlurlna the tll~ that a matter was pendlnw before It'1 24 A. No. I didn't Intend to say whether the 25 ru Les uere or uere not In plse. I Just tried to JES. INC. - 208-349-5788 DEPOSITION OF rIARLY55 I'~YER TN~Jt ON JIAY 12. 2807 29 1 address the practice of the Commission at the time. 2 0. Vera-there enr rules In pLace7 3 A. I'm trrlnG to Look back. Ve did have 4 ru Les In oxen meetlne. Laos that were In place or 5 show Ld have been In place. - 6 0. You don't remember ~r specific rules that 7 Uere In place, thouch7 8 A. The Comnlss ion had verbeLLr discussed some 9 orotoco is and some rules that ve uou Ld aeree to and 10 ther were not necessarl Lr what was In the mama L. 11 Those were kind of Just aGreed between us until those 12 could cat ur ltten up. Those Uere orettr much the rules 13 that ve were operat lna br. 14 O. Vhen were those rules written w7 15 A. Not for awl to somet lire. It took multe a 16 uhl Le before ue cot the protoco L as I race Ll. 17 D. That wow Ld have been aFter the hearing 16 process with respect to the St. Luke's matter that then 19 were written up7 20 A. I honest Lr can't recall the time. AGaln. 21 we uou Ld have dlscusslons empnG us and aereements. the 22 po llcles wow Ld be Llke we Uere supposed to fo LLou rules 23 of order and ue didn't do that. Ve had eGreements 24 between us as to the process that we uou Ld hand Le these 25 things. 30 1 0. Vhet Uere the ru Les that vere In place 2 amongst the commissioners with respect tp speak lna to 3 members of the General pub llc or to an app Llcant at the 4 time the St. Luke's matter was before the Commlssl on7 5 A. IF rou're speaklnG to a constituent that 6 rov're supposed to brlro It beck and let the rest of 7 the commissioners know who row had talked with et that 6 time. Sometimes that uou ttl happen and sometimes It 9 uou Ldn't happen. 10 0. There wasn't a prohlb It lan on talk lnc with 11 members of the General puh Llc but sl mp Lr there was a 12 rule that It was to be disclosed to the other 13 commlssloners that a commissloner had done so7 14 A. It was orettr much up to each comm155loner 15 how ther handled It because there ues some dlscusslon 16 that ue couldn't talk to them and I fe Lt verr strone Lr 17 about the constituents In mr dlstrlct. I knpw Just 18 that In enr dlscusslons that ue had we Uere supposed to 19 disc Lose those. 20 D. Vas the rule the s~ with respect to 21 talklnG to an aPpllcant as It was with respect to 22 to Lklna to members of the General public. other meabers 23 of the General pub Llci 24 A. I don't recall there belnG am dlscusslon 25 end sepa^atinG It from the General pub Llc versus the BURNHPM. HA9E1 & ASS 31 ? abp Llcant. but ue did aLwars #rr to make sure the 2 app Llcant wow Ld talk to staff, basics LLr work throuch 3 the mpLlcatlon. But ue often had -- If I recaLL. 4 there were oftentimes when that was what ue were there s for, to represent businesses. private business, those 6 kind of Indlvldua Ls. 7 D. So It wasn't uncommon then for a 6 commissioner to talk to an app ll cant or the general 9 pub Llc, constituents In connection with a matter 10 pendlnG before It7 11 A. I don't think It vas necessarllr uncommon. 12 D. It was standard pperatlnG procedure far 73 staff to to Lk to en goo Llcant dur lna the process. 14 wasn't It. In prder to get the Information necessarr to 15 form ~ oplnlon7 16 A. Staff was to work with all parties 77 Invo Lved. 18 0. Routine Lr7 19 A. Uh-huh. IAfflrmatlvel- 20 0. Dld raw to Lk to. representatives from 21 Nontvue durlne the time period In which the St. Luke's 22 app Ll cat ion was pendlne before the Ada Countr HlGhwer 23 Dlstrlcti 24 A. At the pub Llc meetlnGS, res. 25 D. Dld row talk to them outs lde of the pub Llc 32 1 meetlnes, ever? 2 A. I don't recaLL am dlscusslon with am of 3 them. 4 D. Sv row don't remenber havlne am 5 dlscusslons with either John tlcCreedr or hs. Griffiths 6 or anrhodr else except durlnG a pub Llc meetlnG7 7 A. I Just recall public -- I don't recall am G of them direct Lr cal line me or contact lnc me. 9 D. Or row to Lk lnG to them after a meatlnc or 10 before a meet lne7 71 A. Yeeh. at the public meetings, the peop Le 12 cominG In ue uou ld Greet them, but as f~' es specific 13 Issues I reaLLr don't recaLL. But ell the 14 commissioners mar talk to several Individuals after the 15 meetings and that was common. If they Uere there earlr 16 or If then were starlnc afterwards. there uou ld be some 17 dlscusslon, nothlno that I would sar was real content 79 oriented or decision-maklnG. 19 D. Ynen row Uere on the Commission. did row 20 ever have a personal preference, either pro ar con, 21 with respect tp a proiect before the public hearing was 22 colim leted7 23 A. A personal preference. I fe Lt verr 24 stroneLr that I was representlnG the people of mr 25 dlstrlct end treed to do that. Yeah, I uou Ld present INC. - 208-345-5700 DEPOSITION OF fNRLY55 FLYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2001 36 - 1 to the Comnlsslon recommendations for protects that 2 were of a concern to mr con~stltuents but I don't feel 3 It was a personal Issue. 4 D. when 1 sar perspna L. 1 Just meant rou 5 personalLr would have a preference. either pro or con, 6 with respect to a pm•t lcu tar mpLicaf ion. You mleht 7 Llke It: rou mlcht dls Llke It. Vhat I'm eettlne at Is 6 did rou ever farm an polo Ian or have a preference for 9 the matter before the pub llc hearlnc was had on ~ 10 ~p llcatlan7 71 A. I think rou eo In ulth the Information 12 that rou have but I aLwars trr to keep an open mind 73 with test lmonr. chat would be coming up. Yeah. I 14 usuaLlr ao In with an Idea -- rou trr to do row 15 homework and everrthine and trr to have ~ Idea of how 16 rou're ao lne tp vote with the Informal ion presented to 17 rou mid then. perhaps, test lmonr mar va Lldate that or 16 -It mar chenee that. 19 0. It's not uncommon then when rou co to a -20 pub Llc meetlne mid before the test lmonr Is elven br 21 whoever Is go Ina to show w and talk to have formed an 22 oolnlon one war pr the other with respect to e 23 oertlcu lac protect that rou studied up on7 24 A. 1 don't think that uou Ld be uncomian.. 25 0. It's probab Lr wawa L. Isn't It7 Isn't that 34 1 the whole purpose of readlnc staff reports? 2 A. Ve uou ld go In and prepare to be ab le to 3 discuss them. 4 D. In dolne that and Bettina prepared. rou at 5 Least farmed tentative open Ions as to what row be Ll of 6 or your preference Is wl th respect to a protect, pro or 7 con. rleht7 B A. I would probably sar that's comnpn. 9 D. Hau about the St. Luke's matter? Dld rou 10 have an polo ion, pro pr con, before the pub Llc hearlne 11 on the St. Luke's matter9 12 A. I think the fl rat -- no. because I didn't 13 know enough about It. I was looking for Information 14 and still Catherine InFormetlon on that. trrlne to 19 Bather Information from both sides and, also, trrlne to 16 find put what ow policies and practices uere on 17 somethlna Llke that. 18 D. Somewhere alone the Llne, row formed an 19 oolnlon with respect to the St. Luke's app Llcatlpn. 20 correct? 21 A. Yeeh, l had to vote so uLt lmate Lr 1 had to 22 form one. 23 0. Can rou couch Lr remember or aooroxlmate Lr 24 remember when rou first formed the oolnlon? 25 A. I honest Lr can't renlembar when an opl neon 1 first farmed. It's not so much when It first Formed as 2 the final outcome and I think that was presented In mr 3 vote on Har 11th. 4 D. Old rou make am arguments during the 9 pub llc meetlnes on baba Lf of Nontvue7 6 A. I don't think I made arguments on behalf 7 of them spec lflcalLr. Just mat Ina sure that -- mr ward 6 to the commlssl oners Is that we're mak ins Sure we're 9 dolna what's rleht. I did that on mare than one 10 app Llcat ion other than hbntvue, aealn. mak log sure the 11 process mid ue were listen lrwa and. oftent Imes. I uou Ld 12 make comments to the commlssloners. 13 0. You made a coup Le of motions. did rou not. 14 In connection with the St. Luke's matter that uere In 15 favor pr supportive of the Fbntvue repuest7 16 A. I uou Ld have to see those. frank Lr. If 17 rou can refer to which ones. I'll be happy to read 16 those: I know there ues one for en extens Ian. I think 19 there was one to support staff recommendat Ions. 20 D. Correct. 27 A. If It uere In favor of hontwe or whatever 22 It was. I uou Ld have to look at that pert lcu tar motion. 23 0. Vhr don't rou tare a Look at It. Take a 24 look et Exhibit 11. 25 A. OKar. 36 1 0. I'll note that It sacs: "Comnlssloner 2 Nerer Routson made a su6stltute motion to approve the 3 staffreport and deslenate a time certain for futther 4 actlon.° That recommendetlon was generalLY supportive 5 or promoted the Montvue position: did It nof7 6 A. Usually. when I read this tree of motion, 7 It was kind of a combinatlon, one. uhatever the staff 6 reconmendatlohs uere. I don't have the total notes pn 9 that and, also. 1 uou Ld often ask for a designated tln~^ 10 certain For further action so ue could get It on the 11 ca Lender end eat sanm closure to some thlnes- Pnd not 12 knoulnc whether that uou Ld 6e In favor or whose favor 13 that was, that was Just to try to cat an answer coing 14 so It's kind of a dual pwpose there: 15 0. If row Look up at the minutes It Bars: 16 'Steve PmoLd recommended the chances to the staff 17 report. John FkCreedr greed with the~steff chances, 18 and John IkCreedr wanted atlditlonal time to work with 19 the nelehborhood." John IkCreedr Is the attorney for 20 tbntvue, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 D. Thpseminutes Indicate that the chances 23 uere supporilve of the hontvue Su6dly is ion repuest and 24 that the time extension was spmethlne that Fbntvue 26 canted. correct? BURNHPII, HABEL 6 P.S INr.. - 26A-345-5796 DEPOSITION OF tIARLY55 hEYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2001 37 i 1 A. hr reco Llect ion In this would be norms Llr 2 we uou ld Took to see If the chooses were orettr much 3 asreed br both parties. Yeah. If It was In favor to 4 them. aealn. I can't recall the reconmrendatlons that 5 Steve had but. obvious Lr. br this I was In favor of 6 those. Time extensions we wau Ld usuellr look et mid 7 see If those were compatible to both parties Invo Lved. B That's what ue uere hoplne to do there. I know In this 9 one I am ~ advocate to mate sure that the parties are 10 communlcatlnw. In this oartlcu Lar Instance. It was to 71 hone that Steve had time to work with both Nontvue mid 72 St. Luke's to slue staff time to set sufficient 13 Information to the comml ssloners. 14 0. Let's take a look at the Last minutes 15 there where then talk about BILL Botner. He's a 16 St. Luke's representative. That minute Indicates that 17 St. Luke's was oooosed to the staff chooses and that 76 St. Luke's was oooosed to en extension of time for the 19 Commlsslpn to take action? 20 A. That's what It sets. - 21 0. Then back to mr Question. mr ea~Ller 22 Question: Isn't It true then that the motion that row 23 made with respect to the staff recommendation and with 24 respect to extendlns the time oerlod for action on this 25 matter were supportive of the tbntvue position and they 39 1 presentetl to staff and staff asreed to It. 1 ues In 2 support of staff's recommendet ion. 3 D. You don't have am reason to be ll eve that 4 these minutes m'e Incorrect, do rau7 5 A. Yeah. son~tlaas I do. I think they were 6 sunmsrles and I don't think the minutes always - 7 accurate Lr reflected exact Lr what went on. B 0. You Ld rou be lleve that this pm•t lcuLar 9 minute or the minutes for this pm'tlcuLar meetlne are 10 Inaccurete7 11 A. I can't answer that IF 1 don't have the 12 exact stuff. 13 0. Exact stuff belns7 14 A. The exact tapes that cent on. 15 D. At this point In time. rou don't know 76 uhather It was accurate or Inaccurate? 17 A. At this point In time, these are the 16 minutes that uere approved br the Commission, so If 19 that's the record that's what we have to stand ul th. 20 0. You don't have enr reco Llectlon of votlns 21 aselnst the aooroval of these minutes. da rou? 22 A. No. 23 D. Do row have am recollection of those 24 votlns to adopt them? 25 A. - I probeb Lr did. Thar were usuellr 36 1 were In opposition to the position that St. Luke's had 2 t~en7 3 A. I'm solos to have to sar then uere 4 supportive of the staff's recommend) ns position. I 5 uI LL hold to that orettr much. If that staff 6 recommendation was In favor or not In favor of tbntvue 7 but the recpmmendatlon was to approve the staff 6 recommendations, to me that's very different then Just 9 satins It's In favor of ibntwe. I think It removes e 10 cave 1. It shows ue are uorklns with staff and research 11 and those kind of thanes have been done. I orettr much 72 Like to state 1 was In favor to improve the staff's 13 reconmendatlpn. 14 0. But you uou ld also state, uou Ld you not. 15 that the staff's-rerommendatlons uere consistent with 16 the desires of ibntvue s; expressed In this minute 71 resardlns John ikCreedr's comm?nts7 76 A. Asaln. I tlon't have Steve's 19 racpmmendatlons here so I Just kind of bas lcaLlr was 20 trrlne to support staff. 1 think the minutes reflect 21 or are orettr much ref Lective -- these are summm'l es. 22 not the actual exact discussions and everrthlns that 23 vent on. these are summaries mid I think It does 24 reflect It was -- I'm not solos to set In favor but If 25 It sounded Llke It was somethine it•. IkCreedr had BURNHPl1. HPNtL 6 11JJU1: Ifl It 1 unroll mows. 2 D. If rou voted to adopt these minutes. wowW 3 row have done so If row he Ll eved that that were 4 Inaccurate? 5 A. No. but I wow Ld have done so knoulns they 6 were sumnar les. 7 0. Summaries. minutes are always summaries. 8 But If row he Lleve that .then uere Inaccurate 9 reeltatlons of the testimony In the matters that had 10 occurred before the Ada County Hlahwar Dlstrlct, you 11 wow Ld not have voted toapprove them, would rou? 12 A. Probab Lr not. 13 0. I would hope that. Old tau have mlr 14 conversat Ions with other Comnlesloners re9ardlnB the 15 St. Luke's sop Llcatlon dur ins the oerlod of tlnm that 16 It was pend ins before the Pilo County Hishwar Dlstrlct? 17 A. Yes. I did. 16 N. Ilho did tau talk to7 19 A. de had cork sessions and I uou ld have to 20 sat arobab lr In the weneral works sessions. Wtenever I 21 attended those, end then 14. Bivens on a couple of 22 occasions. 23 D. It. Blvens on a couple of occasions 24 outside of the work sessions? 26 A. Yes. i. INC. - 206-345-5700 DEPDSITION of NARLY55 fEl'ER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2885 1 D. Dld rou talk with am other comnlsslaners 2 outside of the work sessions about the St. Luke's 3 goo Llcat lon7 4 A. No, not outs lde of the work sessions. 6 D. Are there am prohibitions on 6 commissloners tolklna with one another about an 7 moLlcat Ian pending before the Pda Countr Hlehuar 9 District outside dF a meeting or a work session? 9 A. There wasn't at the time. It was a 16 practice for the Comnlsslon to call do their 11 colrenl ssloners. 12 D. 91ml Lay Lr, as with to Ucing with the 73 canst ltuents. members of the general oub llc. 14 goo Llcants. comet lssloners were free to sneak with other 19 commissloners about an goo Llcatlon oendlro before the 16 Ada Countr H1 ghuer DlstrV Ct outsl de of the confines of 77 a oub Llc meet lne or a work session. Is that your 19 testimony? 19 A. Yes. 28 D. Have rou talked to John NcCreedr. 21 Jlm Jones ar enr of the residents of the Itontvue 22 Subdivision since the final oub Llt meet ln9 on the 23 St. Luke's ama Llcat ion wh lch. I be Ll eve, was August 11. 24 19997 26 A. Yes, I have. 43 1 with Nontvue that I reca Ll. 2 B. You don't remember sneak Ina ulth either 3 John NcCreedr or Jlm Jones, those tvo for rleht now, 4 concernlna the St. Luke's ~o Llcatlon that was ar~oroved 5 in Pugust of '99 other than the two bccaslons that S you've Just testlfled to7 7 A. I don't reca LL havlna am separate 8 conversetlons with them to discuss that. 9 D. Nho did rou to LL that Nr. Blvens had 18 Ind lcated that he had a discussion with the fine 11 sent Leman from St. Luke's? Who did rou make that 12 conment to7-. 13 A. I had made It to 14. Jones here mid I 14 think I made It, orohab Lr, to a cwole of staff members 19 ~d a oosslbl Lltr of the ALHD adminlstretor et the 16 time. 17 D. As I remember the testimony -- end I could 18 be Incorrect -- I think the uer the testimony came In 19 today was that tF. Jones askedrou bout talking with zB the fine sent lemen from St. Luke's end I be Lleve In the 21 em~Ller deoosltlon this morning pith Yh. Blvens that 22 Yr. Jones asked a sl ml Lay west ion uslna the term "f lne 23 gentlemen." hr westlon to rou Is: dltl rou to LL 24 rh. Jones or I'F•. NcCreedr at ~~rtlme about this aLleaed 25 converset ion between t1r. Blvens and the floe gent Leman 44 1 D. Nhen was the Last time you've talked to 2 am of those? 3 A. I spoke to I'4'. NcLreedr this morning 4 asklna him If he had am ml nutes or documentetlon that 5 I could refer to If necessary and that was mrettr much 6 the extent of that converset ion. 1 smoke to R. Janes, 7 maybe last week, canflrmine that I had received the 6 request for this deoosltlon and Just conflrmina at that. 9 time. 18 0. Bld rou talk to him about anrthlna else. 71 anything substantive about your test lmonr today? 12 A. I don't feel It was anrthlna reel 13 substantive. Bas lcaLLr what It was about was Montvue 14 and St. Luke's. i6 D. Nos It about matters that rou testlfled to 16 fader? 17 A. Nr. Jones nor rr. I'k:Creedr asked me 18 anrthlna along those Lines. 19 0. Had roc talked with M-. Jones or 2B ~. NcCreedr prior to this lest conversation that rou 21 Just mentioned with Nr. Janes between Aveust 11. '99 22 and this Last conversatl on7 23 -A. Yeah. I spoke to him. fF. IkCreedr had 24 done another oresentatlon for somerne else and It would 29 mrobab Lv be alone that subJect so It was nothing to do BURNHAH. HPBEL a A5: 1 at St. Luke's other than today? 2 A. 1 don't recall. 3 D. How about the reoresentat Ives of the 4 Montvue Subdlv lslon7 Do rou remember sneak lf~ with am S of them after the August 11. 1999 oub Llc meetlna 6 concernlne the St. Luke's eon Llcatlon far anrthlna 7 revo Lving mound the St. Luke's approve L7 6 A. I tea LLr don't recall. ~aln, maJOr 9 converset ion or dlseuss ion about the Issue with them. 18 D. Vlth anrtodr7 11 A. Not real Lr. 12 D. At airtime after August 11th? 13 A. No. 1 don't reca LL contact ins anybody and 14 I don't recall enrhodr contacting me. 19 D. Okay., Dld Nr. Blvens Indlcete to rou or 16 to the other comnlssloners when ha had supposed Lr 17 talked to the floe gent Leman, uslna tour cards, at 16 St. Luke's? 19 A. Can roc remeat the guest lon7 28 D. Dld Nr. Blvens Indlcete tw roc ar the 21 other conmissloners when he had sumoosed Lr talked to 22 the "f lne sent Leman"7 23 A. To be spec lflc no. 24 D. You don't know If roc had a conversation 26 with somebody at St. Luke's mrlor to the mubLlc INC. - 288-349-5788 DEPOSITION OF NPRLYSS MEYER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2001 1 meet lnesi 2 A. The tlloe It came uo was kind of In between 3 based on a debate he and I were havlnw as to whether he 4 ues representlna those oeoo Le out there or not so I S cow Ldn't answer row. 6 0. Vhen raw sar row were havlna a debate 7 about whether he was reoresentlnw those oeoo Le. this 6 debate occurred durlnw the Interval of the pub Llc 9 hearlnw process? . 10 A. As I recaLL. 11 0. It was durinw that conversation that he 12 had mentioned his canverset ion or It was durlnw this 13 debate that he mentioned this conversation with the 14 fine sent Leman From St. Luke's? 15 A. It seems Ll kes It was durlns one of those 16 and actualLr durlns one of the work sessions when ue 17 were wolne In. Aaaln. I kind of recaLL the tone of 18 that end the 91st of It but I'm trrlne to recaLL the 19 actual place. One of the commehts was made In our 26 meeting room and that's where we wawa LLr were. Yhether 21 It was durlns a work session or be Fore or after that I 22 can't recaLL. 23 D. But row don't recollect him sarlne when 24 the cgnversat ion was with the floe sent lemen took 26 place? 46 1 A. No. 2 D. If rh. Blvens testlfled under oath that he 3 did not to Uc to am reoresentat Ives of St. Luke's 4 durl nw the time per lod In which this matter was pendlne 5 befgre the Ada Co.mtr Hlwhuar Olstrict. do row have 6 reason to be Ll evethat he perJUred hlmse Lf7 7 A. I honest Lr can't answer that. I don't 8 know th. Blvens so I Just feel I cel't msuer that. 9 0. Are r_ou teLllne methat row don't have am 10 reason to be Lleve that he committed oerJUrr or are row 71 to Llln® ne? that row Just don't knpu7 12 A. 1 can't answer that either war. 1 cannot 13 sneak and wI LL not soe~c for Nr. Blvens or his values 14 or his ohl Losoohr. 15 B. I'm not ask Ina row to speak as to his 16 values or his phi Losophr. I'm asklne row If he 17 testlfled under oath that he did not to Lk to a 16 reoresentat eve et St. Luke's durlns the pub Llc hearlno 19 process do row have am reason to be Ll eve that he 20 committed peNurri 21 Mi. JONES: ObJ,ectlon. I think It 22 mischarecterizes his testlmonr. 1 think he Bald he 23 couldn't recall whether he had or not. 24 tR. BURNS: Fair enough. 25 B. But If he had? BURNHPh. HABEL a 1 A. Frank Lr. 1 don't cent to wo there because 2 tF. Blvens would chanee his mind on song things. If he 3 testlfled to what he testlfled. that's what he 4 testlfled to. If there's perJUrr or m opinion or e 5 motlpn or a va Lue behind that. 1 Just can't answer 6 that. 7 O. Vhat I'm asking row Is: do row have ~r 6 know Ledse of enr fits that est~Llsh that he was not 9 to LLinw the truth? 10 A. ~~ No. I don't have am facts. 11 ~ tAi. BURNS: That's all questions I have. 72 tR. JONES: 1 have a few more questions. 13 FURTHER EXAN INAT ION 14 BY MR. JONES: i6 D. You Indicated that It was kind of en 16 InFormal oo Llcr amongst the commlssloners et the time 17 that this moll cat ion came uo far cons lderatlon that 16 row would disclose tour contacts that row had from 19 oeoo le. Vhen row sat row uou Ld disclose your contacts. 20 were row tatklne also about the substance of wfiat then 21 had to sar? 22 A. Usual Lr res. 23 D. Vhen row made the disc Losure. It wau Ld be 24 who It was end chat that hedto sar? 26 A. Yhat It was about. that's correct. 46 1 tit. JONES: Ve' LL take a hreak. 2 IBrlef recess.) 3 tB. JONES: Ve're back an the record. 4 0. lBY 19i. JONESI PF. Burns was asklnw row 5 whether row had op lnlons that row took Into the meetlne 6 and I think row Ind lcated that sometlnes rpu did but 7 row treed to hear oeoo le out. Old row ever feel It was B mproorlate to cut off someone who ues trrlne to 9 emre55 gl oolnlon pontrarY to. marbe, m oolnlon YoU 1e nad7 11 A. No. not et el L. I be Lleve everrbodr has 12 the rlwht to present. Ve did have certain time 73 allotments. If that were being tea Llr redundant or 14 wolnw on and on but very seldom did that ever hmpen. 15 But If that were haslcaLLr Invo Lved In presentlne 16 someth lrre. It was not uncommon to Let them coat Iowa. 17 O. You Indicated that row had some 18 dlscusslons with fh. Blvens outs lde the work sass Ions 19 on this Issue. Oo row recall how moor dlscusslons row 20 had with hlm7 21 A. Just baslcaLlr. as I recaLL, It was a 22 coup Le end I wow Ldn't sat It was In-depth dlscusslpns 23 as much as they were comments and concerns that. ewaln. 24 It Just seemed Llke we needed to do a batter Job at 29 representln® our constituents out there. In a INC. - ama-3G5-9mq DEPOSITION OF fIPRLY55 t~YER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2881 1 part lcu lay situation. I had made comments to a coup Le 2 of the commlssloners that I didn't appreciate bias 3 conmmnts. I talked to him on that and he referred me 4 back to either Commlssloner Huber who was Chair et the 5 time or Comm ssloner Derr. But I wanted to make sure 6 that we stared neutral and had as much representat Ion 7 from the people at the time. 6 One of the comments was I didn't Feel like 9 we had enovah InFOrmetlon to really mate decisions. I 19 wou Ld Llke our work sessions to be -- 1 ues kind of 11 Lobbrlna him to support me to mdse sure our work 12 sesslpns were a Ll tt le bit Lano~ and allow 13 oartlclpants to come In and do presentet Ions at work 14 sessions and not be totally dependent -- 15 O. Do you recall when you ce LLed uo this 16 morn lrro to ask Nr'. NcCreedr for the minutes dlscusslne 17 tha Flne sent Leman from St. Luke's? 16 A. I don't recall dlscusslne that vlth him 19 this mornlne. I was kind of In a rush and so was he 20 and mr main concern was trrlno to find some copies of 21 the minutes, If they would be oval lab Le. 22 D. I think that rou had Indicated that you 23 had spoken to same people during a break or times when 24 thesemeetlnas were aping on. Do rou recall speaklna 25 with Tresha Griffiths during either of these meet logs? 51 1 SerlaL meet Ines solos on and. for that very reason. I 2 was always very taut sous If somebody contacted ms to 3 let them know to try to find out. 4 D. Vhen rou talk about serlal meetines chat 6 do rou neon? 6 A. Commlssloners would discuss Items over the 7 phone and not Inc Lude other commissioners In It. 6 D. Do rou know If that h~pened on this 9 Issue? 19 A. I don't know If It happened on this Issue. 11 D. It mar have or It mar not have: you }ust 12 don't know? 13 - A. That's correct. 14 NR. JONES: That's eLL I have. 19 142. BURNS: I've sot couple more 16 Questions. 17 FURTHER EXPtIINAT ION 16 BY tPi. BURNS: 19 D. Vou Ld It be fair to say that the traffic 29 conditions on Eaa Le Road between the Interch~ae and 21 Frank Lln Road are bad? 22 A. At the Interchanae7 23 D. That who Le sectlpn between the Interchenee 24 end Frank Lin Road, that the contlltlons on EaaLe Road 29 are bad? se 1 A. I'm sorer. I don't. I never yea Llr apt 2 names and I eoo loalze. 3 O. Bo you ever recall to Lling am of the 4 Nontvue residents that then better Lobby hard for their 5 posit lon7 6 A. I don't recall to 111 na them to lobhr herd 7 and 1 don't know If I did with them. But with 6 different stoups that would contact ore -- I'm not 9 satins ue did It -- I'm satins. talk to tour 10 representative. end I would to LL that to anrbotlr 11 Inc Ludlna mr own. _ 12 D. Vas It tour Impression that some of the 13 commissioners were subJect to belne Lobbied or were 14 Lobbied on varlpus Issues that came before the 15 Commisslon7 16 A. Yes. 17 D. Do you have ~r knowledge pf whether am 1B Lobbrlna went on on the St. Luke's Issue? 19 A. No. nothlna that 1 recall was disclosed. 26 0. Nothing was disc Losed that could or cowLd 21 not -- 22 A. It could have happened. Nothlna was 23 disc Losed. There h~ been some problems with the 24 Conmll sslon before In some serlal meetlnas. That was 25 one thins I ues aaalnst because there was so much In s2 1 A. Hou do rou define bads I think there ere 2 some concerns. 3 O. I would call bed Level service F. 4 A. I don't know Level service F. Yeah. there 5 ~e some real orob Lelns on that road. _ 6 D. Have you ever been out there durlne rush 7 hour? 6 A. Yes. 9 0. Have rou seen cm-s backed up pff the 10 freeuer or onto the freeway trrlno to set onto Eaa le 11 Road solos northl _ 12 A. Yes. I've seen cars backed w eLL 13 different directions. 14 D. That's abetter uer to say It. ell 16 different directions. okay. Do you th Ink that the 16 conditions pn E~Le Road cow td Lend or cow Ld create 17 Llfe-safetr orob lams as a result of bLocklna access to 16 the hosolte L7 19 A. If I understand the Issues as Far as 26 Llahts and the oval labl Lltr of the Llaht Ina system 21 allows access there but. unfortunate lr. the aeneraL 22 driver cml treats all sorts of orob lams. I wuess I'm 23 not sure I understand your cuestlon or ~swerlna It 24 correct Lr. 25 D. hr Quest Ion Is: under the exlstlna INr. - AmR-iG5-57mm DEPDSITIDN OF hW2LY56 I'~YER TAKEN ON JULY 12. 2881 53 1 traFFlc conditions or as they existed. more 2 speclficalLr, In Pugust of 1999. were there ootentlal 3 Ll fe-safety prob Lena associated with galnlnB access to 4 the hosplta l7 In other words. If access ues blocked to 5 the hosoltal because Eagle Road vas a mess and aLL 6 backed up In evert dlrectlon, are there ootentlal 7 Llfe-safety prob Lens associated with an arbu Lance. for 8 Instance, not being ab Le to aet Into the hosplta L7 9 A. 1 don't recall am of that discussion In 10 am of these meetings. 1 sues there's a possl6l ll tr of 11 that et am Intersection. but I don't race LL that ever 12 being presented at air of the discussions or meetlnes. 13 D. I don't cant to talk about what was 14 discussed. I want to to lk ~ebout the conditions on the 19 road out there. I be Lleve we've agreed that trefflc Is 16 aLL messed uo on Eagle Road In every dlrectlon from 17 time to time. correct? 16 A. I cal agree with that. 19 D. In fact, there are periods of the day when 20 you can't set from the freeway to 6t. Luke's Hosvltal 21. without a long de ley because of backed-up trefflc that 22 extends aLL the war on the freeuar. correct? 23 A. Probab tr. 24 0. Just as a matter of connwn sense. If the 25 ambulance bed a heart attack vlctlm In It and they were 54 1 trying to set to the hosoltal end then were backed uo 2 on the freeuar ueltlne For the trefflc Light to charge. 3 could there be a Llfe-safety Issue assoc lated ul th the 4 Inabl Lltr of the ambulance to get that heart attack 5 vlctlm Into the hosoltal aulck Lr7 6 A. I'm a ll tt le uncomfortab Le with this Ll ne 7 of guest ion because you can assume probab lr enr of 6 those condlt Ions. obvious tr. St. Luke's has been bul Lt 9 out there for a reason end they're expending out there 10 for a reason. If that were a factor ore eenulne 11 concern, then obvious Lr uov Ldn't he In the position 72 that they're In and It's had for me to sit here today 13 aid soecu late res. .that could hmpen or no, that 14 couldn't harpen. I'm a Lltt le uncomfortable with that. 15 D. If things eot vorse out there on Eag Le 16 P.oad old the de Lars sot longer In the future. cal you 17 see a scenario where Llfe-safetr Issues mlwht arise. 16 even If they don't exist today. because of blocked 19 access to the hosoltal of emer•gencr vehlc Les? 20 A. Again. rou cal soecu Late Just about 21 anything you cent to. I Just don't want to aet Into 22 that because L would have to allude to the experts et 23 St. Luke's that bul It on Yhat coed, on that access, for 24 whatever reasons. I'm reel Lr uncomfortab Le In 25 soeculating on air of that. 55 1 D. Let me ask rau this auestlon: If rou were 2 In ~ a*bu Lance and. say, rou had a heart attack. uou ld 3 It concern you If there was a pro loosed de Lar In 4 eettlne to the hosoltal because of traffic condlt ions? 5 A. of course. But I think. that's throughout 6 this town. that's not Just out there. I'LL out It that 7 war. B o. Aren't the conditions on E~Le Road worse 9 than In most places within Ada County? 10 A. From mr emerlence, I'm not solos to say 71 worse than most places. Ne have soma set sous -- 12 Frank lln, not Frank lln but I guess I wow Ld have to say 13 It's not vorse than most because ue have a lot of -- I 14 think ACHD was ranked as hev log the too dangerous 15 Intersections In the oat ion atd that one wasn't Llstetl. 16 But Frank Ll mE~le there's no ouestlon. and 17 Fairview-Co Le there's no auestlon of danger aid 18 fll Lweukee. At am of these. If I was In ah ambu Lace 19 old Ihad to get through that traff lc. In air of these 2B streets or areas It would he vary unfortunate. 21 D. Is your test lonnr then that the condlt Ions 22 on E~fe Road are not worse than the conditions In most 23 places In the count r7 24 A. I feel Llke you're trying to aet m to say 25 yes or no to that. I don't know the status of some of 56 1 those right now so, really. It's hard for me answer 2 that. 3 0. I'm urine to understald whether rau 4 be Lleve that there's a prob Lem on Eagle Road or not a 5 prob tam an Emile Road. 6 A. I think I already answered that E~Le Road 1 has problems but I'm not goitre to rate It whether It's B worse or not as worse as a Lot of the other 9 Intersections In this county because I don't have the 10 Information. It's been a uhl le since I've been with 11 the ACHD to validate that. There's no auestlon, es 12 both a driver old a previous commlss loner. that there's 13 some streets old Intersections that have some maior 14 concerns and Eag Le Road uou Ld be one of them. 75 D. But Eeg Le Road Is not necessa'I lr worse 16 than many other roads In Ada County then, according to 17 rourtestlmonr7 16 A. No. I'm satins -- I'm not eo low to say 79 It's worse and I'm not going to say It's better. I'm 2B not saying on that. I'm Just satins that It has Its 21 arob lams the same uer as a lot of the other coeds old 22 Intersections do. Nhether It's vorse or not worse, I'm 23 not In a pos ltlon to spec lfr which one It's erecter 24 then end which one It's Less than. 25 0. Do you think It uou Ld be a good Idea. BURNHAM. HPBEL 6 ASSDC IATES. INC. - 2BB-345-5788 DEPOSITION OF MARLY66 tEYER TPKEN ON JULY 12. 2001 57 1 based upon rout know Ledee of the condltlons on Eag Le 2 Road between Frank Lln and the Interchanee, to put 3 substantla Llr more cars onto Eeg le Road? 4 A. I think rou have to take Into S conslderatlon there's growth go lne out there. That's a 6 high-growth area and the westlpn Is -- sometimes It 7 mar be not rleht to out It on -- that erouth Is going 6 the occur and the puestlon Is: how to develop Eag Le 9 Roads I think that's why then have the Eeg le Road 10 study arid, as ue mentioned. I was an advocate of 11 frontage roads out there. It's how It's developed: 12 It's npt a westlon of whether there's golne tp be 13 more. The westlon~ls how It's going to be hand Led and 14 managed. _ 15 0. There aren't am frontage roads along 16 Eag Le Read. ere there? 17 A. The entire Length of Eag Le Road. I don't 18 think so. I don't 'recaLL. But you're specifying 19 probab lr more In the area -- 20 0. I'm talklne about anywhere on Eeg le-Road. 21 I'm not aware of enr. I'm Just asklne If you're aware 22 pn enr frontage roatls on Eag Le Road? 23 A. I haven't keen war, war out so I don't 24 think so. I'm not aware of arlr. 25 0. Since there aren't am Frontage roads on 59 1 puestlon? 2 0. Actua LLr. I don't think It does. Vhat mr 3 westlon was: do rou perceive anything wrong. LdYlne 4 aside the fbntvue Issue, with the ACHO's approval of 5 the St. Luke's app llcatlon es far as road condltlons 6 are concerned, traffic condltlons? 7 A. Vhet you're sating Is exc Luding the 8 hontvue repuest to have the cross easement -- 9 0. Correct. 10 A. You're asklne If It's okay to allay 11 St. Luke's to have more traff lc thrweh thats 12 0. Yes, et that time do rw see enrthlna 13 wrong with morov lyre a rawest to bul Ld a hospital and 14 put more traffic on Emile Road Larlrm aside the tbntvue 15 Issue? -~ 16 A. I think with the Infprmetlon ue had et the 17 time. aside from the 1lontvue Issue, If It were totally 19 St. Luke's and Montvue were not Invo Lved, I probab lr -- 19 old knowing egel n. If I recaLL. that the Level of 20 service pr what arterlaLs are designed to handle or 21 what collectors handle It. It seems Ll ke rou ere within 22 the numbers that the model aLlpued. 23 0. Larlrre Ifontvue aside. do you think you 24 uou Ld have voted for the St. Luke's app llcat lan. voted 25 for approval of the St. Luke's ~p llcatlon. If there BB 1 Eagle Road, do you think It's a good Idea or a bad Idea 2 the war the road Is developed In Its current condition 3 to put more. cars on It7 4 A. Ypu're referring to the specific strip 5 between Frank lln and Over Land. I assume. 6 D. I'm to lk lna bout Eye Le Road generellr but 7 we to Lked about -- 8 A. I think Eagle Road can handle more cars. 9 D. You do7 10 A. I do. 11 D. Then you don't be lleve there was anrthine 12 wrong ulth the ALHD moroveL of the St. Luke's 13 ~p llcatlon et least vls-a-vls traffic condltlons out 14 there, setting as lde the Issue of Montvue arld their use 15 of the St. Luke's private drive, corrects 16 A. If I understand tour puestlon correctly, 17 It seems Like St. Luke's had ~ aoollcatlon end I think 76 there was another nursing home or something going 19 bah lnd that. There was some puestlon whether 20 St. Luke's owned that or who managed that, but there 21 was additional access going onto St. Luke's drive going 22 Into Eagle Road. I guess et the time I thought It was 23 arobab lr that was considered a co Llector hoth on the 24 west side and the east side arld that could be the 25 proper place to put the traffic. Does that answer tour RI IRNHAN_ wARR w AS! 60 1 h~n't been this Issue with Nontvue7 2 A. That's areal general statement. It's 3 hard tp sat. I arobeb Lr uou ld have swported 4 St. Lvke's ~cess there with the numbers and stuff. I 6 uou ld npt have -- again. In the oast, based on Just 6 whet we had. If the numbers met there. because I think 7 we dltl approve -- with the numbers and everrthlne, I 6 don't think 1 uou Ld have h~ a prob lam with It. 9 0. You uehe the on lr comnlsslpner who voted 10 against the St. Luke's app llcatlon, corrects 11 A. As 1 recaLL. 12 0. Pnd you carl't think of enr reason that tau 13 mleht have voted egalnst_the app llcatlon other than the 14 Montwe situation, cars rou? 15 A. I don't recaLL In mr mind votlne against 16 It for ~r reason soecl FlcaLLr targeted et St. Luke's. 17 It seems like the traff lc counts were there. There 16 was. again. In some of the s1aFf pre5entatlon It won't 19 Just St. Luke's. It was St. Luke's expansion. It was 20 the nurslne home and those other a^eas that were going 27 to be around It. Staff presented to us that they were 22 going to uLt lmate Lr feed onto that St. Luke's road. 23 I think If It were Just St. Luke's coming 24 In end they had asked for the emarlslon I wow Ld have 25 handled It the sane war I would have handled am other INr. - 208-345-5700 DEPOSITION OF tINiLY55 tEYER TPKEN ON JULY 12. 2001 61 1 one as fa- as am cross easement with the understanding 2 that aLL these ere solos to Feed on the sane road. 90 3 I uou Ld have hard led It the sane war. 4 0. Vhat I'm ask Ina row Is: are rou aware of 9 am reason. other then the Montwe Issue. for your °no" 6 vote on the St. Luke's sop licatlon? 7 A. Pk~. Burns. It's hard far me to separate B other than St. Luke's and Montvue because It was e 9 packaee des L. 1 guess at this stage I'm not solos to 10 answer what I would have done on a separate aao Ll cation 71 because 1 wow Ld have to address that seoerate 12 mplltet ion as It stood on Its own. 13 To me, this was a package deal. 1 feel 14 ll ke you're ask log me to separate that other that that 15 and I honest Lr don't have a fu Ll ~a licatlon [o see 16 everrthlna. But 1 would have handled It with the saw 17 eporoech 1 uou Ld have held led arlr others taking Into 16 conslderatl on the thlnas that I take Into. 19 G. Vhen rou say It was a package sou licatlon. 20 what era row referrlna to7 Vhat was the packme7 21 A. The oackaae. to me, whenever en 22 app Llcetlonuou Ld coma through, was to Look et safety 23 features. air of the busl nesses that were taming Into 24 am of the yes ldentlaL areas had they corked with the 25 residents. again. chat uas the growth ootentlaL aoing 63 1 for soma troe of erouth oroJect ion and hou ouch uou Ld 2 6e expected to handle It and et what times. 3 G. Old rou ask for those proJectlons7 4 A. I think I asked for those at staff because 5 that's where I Learned the eddlt lanai from the nurslre 6 home and those things that were golna In. I did talk 7 to staff about some of the other ~o Llcatlons that were 8 coming In from the nest side, those kind of thlnas. 9 G. Then when the staff Looked Into that old 10 advised old orepa-ed their final report. tlo row 11 remember chat staff sold about the traffic condltlons7 12 A. There ues Just dlscusslan. At some oolnt 13 It uou Ld prob~lr have to be Looked Into and probab Lr 14 monitored to see whet ue cow Ld do with that section of 15 E~Le Road. 1 think there were some prob lens with 16 growth old traffic, Drab Lems that occurred a lot sooner 17 than anyone ever ant lclpeted. I don't rata LL exact Lr 18 chat their comments were. I'd have these dlscusslons 19 with rr. Little old with It. Brown. 20 G. Take a Lpok et Eldllblt 1. Turn to what's 21 nunmered es Dose 3 but It's not oeae 3 In the aeckege. 22 Oo row see under Facts and Findings letter G7 23 A. Yes. 24 D. Read down to the second to the last or 25 third to the last sentence towartls the batten or flue 62 1 to 6e. those kind of thlnas. whet uou ld the trefilc 2 numbers ultimate Lr handle. how uou Ld It Inmact the 3 whole arterial end co Llector systems, those kind of 4 thlnas. That you Ld be the same approach that I took on 5 your app licatlon ~ I took on other aoo tlcatlons. 6 D. Vhen you talk about the p~k~e. whet 7 you're talk log about Is each goo licatlon has a series 6 of Issues associated with It that you need to look at 9 In connection with formina an opinion es to whether 10 you're golre to vote yes or no. Is that e.felr 11 statement? 12 A. Yes. that's how 1 eoproech them. hou I 13 aooroached each goo licatlon. 14 0 As a packaae of Issues. Gkar. Now. mr 15 puestlon to you Is: can you Identify enr .Issue In this 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o~kaga of Issues. other than the Montvue Issue. as the basis For roar vote against the St. Luke's eoo licatlon? A. The concern I had et the time. mid It still surfaces. was the amount of growth that was belna antic lpeted out In that Dart lcu lay a•ea of St. Luke's old the nursln8 home and there was some dlscusslan of an access off somewhere to Frank Ll n. I can't remember. soles dirt road or spmething that was In pa't of that. So If there was anrthlre that uou Ld have added concern separate from the Montwe. I orob~lr would have asked BURNHAI1, HABEL a 64 1 lines uo. It says: "This section of roadway show td 2 have the cmecltr to accommodate all of the traffic 3 from the current Lr prwosed deve Looments. The planning 4 threshold has not been determined Far this true of 5 roadway. Staff reconmends that the PPA Transoortat ion 6 Model Pdvlsorr Comnlttee ITtIACI be rewested to 7 eve luate Eagle Rued from I-B4 to State Hlahuar 44 and 6 establish slaming tM'eshoLds for It." Do rou dlsaaree 9 with enr pf that? 10 A. No. 11 D. So you don't take exception to this 12 finding that this section of roadway should have the 13 cmacltr to accommodate all of the traffic from the 14 current Lr proposed deve Looments7 15 A. Vhen then uou Ld say current lr proposed 16 deve loolimnts -- I have to clarify this -- one of the 17 concerns or frustrations that I uou Ld express Is that 16 we often had piecemeal mall cat Ions come Into us. Ve 19 did hot have the big olcture. Ve mlaht have tuo or 20 three current app llcetlons but not knowing there's 21 elghtmore In the olcture. 22 One of the frustrat Ions I bed, and I 23 repeatedly asked for, ultlmatelr a Letter wassent to 24 the Department of Transvprtatlon. was on these state 25 hlahwars that we Ilet with the DOT there would be soma INr.. - ?mA-i45-570m DEP061LION OF MARLY55 tEYER TACEN ON JULY 12, 2081 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 studles done that we had same true of growth vroJect Ions mid studles done on exact LY hou much these uou Ld hand Le. Sometimes this -- I think chat that were referring to here was I'm eoln0 to sat for the Inmedlacr of the moment mid that's hou. sometimes. that were handled and that's chat I uouLd set this one was. I had no areument of want lne to eva Wete E~Le Road end esteb Llsh planning thresho Lds. 0. But at the time that this finding was adopted br the PCHD, roc didn't have am reason to he lleve that It was a false finding. did roll! A. No. D. You don't have m;r reason to beLleve that your staff uou ld have Inc Luded a false flndlne In Its recommendatlans to the PCHO to adopt, do rou7 A. I don't feel that staff ever reaLlr Intent lanaLLr did false flndln®s but, guile freouent Lr. ue wow Ltl have an error In staff reports that had to be modlfl ed. D. That's true In am aspect of Llfe. People mdse errors. don't ther7 A. No. that's what I'm sarlne~ 1 don't think staff uou ld IntentlonalLr do that. Mar I make e conmlent7 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 26 21 22 23 24 25 0. Sure. A. It refers to the APA Transportation Node 1. That was something else that I chaLler~ed because I d ldn't feet that that model took In the erouth caoacltr out nest. Towards the end of mr term, they did come forward mid sat that those APA Transvortatlon Mvde is were not accurate. That uILL help roc ours down the row. 0. Out that was something that happened after the aoorovaL of the St. Luke's app Llcatlon7 A. The cha )Lena lne of~the APA Transportation Mode L9 0. No: the determlhat Ion that It wasn't accurate. A. Right. right, mr challenging to the PPA Transpartatlan Nodal was contlnuing throughout mr term. f4i. BURNS: That's eLl the auestlons I have. Thank roc. tot. JONES: I don't have anrth Ina further. IYherewon the deposition cant hided at 3:00 o.m.l ISleneture reouested.) 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 16 17 18 19 2e 21 22 23 24 25 VERIFICATION STATE OF > ss- COUNTY OF ~ > I. NPRLYSS fEYER, belne first dulr scorn on mr oath, demase and sat: That I-am the witness named In the fvrwolne ~deooslt Ion taken the 12th dar of Ju Lr. 2661. conslstlne of owes numbered 1 to 66. Inc Lusive: that I have reed the Bald deposition and knov the contents thereof) that the auestlons contained therein were propounded to me: the answers to sold auestlons were given br me, end _ that the answers es cpntalned therein let ffi corcected br me therelnl ere true and correct. F<IPtCYSS-T1E4Efl-- Subscrlbed mtd scorn to before me this _ dar of . 2001, et Idaho. Residln®ue4 c pr p Idaho. hr Commission ;wires: 68 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 L SU7lWNE GRIBB IN. CSR No. T216. Certlf led 3 Shorthand Reporter. cerYlfr: 4 That the foreAOlnc proceedlnas were tdcen S before me at the time end glace therein set forth. at 6 which time the ul mess was out under oath br me: 7 That the test lmpnr and aLl ohJectlons made B were recorded stenoereph lcallr br me end were 9 thereafter transcribed~br me or under mr dl rectlon; 10 That the foregoing Ise true mid corcect 11 trmiscrlptof aLl testlmonr given, to the best of mr 12 abl lilt; 73 I further certlfr that I mn not arelatlve or 14 ego loree of am attprner or of am of the pm~tles. nor 15 fln~c la LLr Interested In the act Ion. 16 I dec Lore that the foregoing Is True end 17 correct. 18 _ IN HITNE55 IIFLEREOF. 1 set mr hand mid seal 19 this 20th dar of Ju Lr. 2881. 20 21 G o. ~ BolseY dahdc 23 24 25 Mr Comm lssloM Emires 12-4-06 HPBEL s ASSOCIATES. INC. - 2BB-345-570e - IDAHO SUPREME COURT IDAHO COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of the Courts P. O. Box 83720 (208) 334-2210 OCTOBER 5 , 2 0 O 1 Boise, Idaho 83720-0101 ~~cEivE~ RECEIVED CHRISTOPHER S . NYE OCT Q Q ~~~~ 5700 E FRANKLIN ROAD STE 200 NAMPA ID 83 687-84 02 ~~@-~~y ~~F~~ -ORDER- GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME (CV) Docket No. (App) GRIFFITHS, GLEN V. 27559 (Res) CITY OF MERIDIAN OCT 16 2001 CITY OF MERIBYAN ADA DC Docket # 9906199D A Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief having been filed, therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that APPELLANT'S Motion for Extension of)Pime to file BRIEF is GRANTED and the Brief shall be filed in this office (I.A.R. 21) on or before OCTOBER 15, 2001. FOR THE SUPREME COURT S/ FREDERICK C. LYON, Clerk NOTE: See I.A.R. Rule 46 for Extension of Time generally. B02/03220 092 / LD 10:53:03 For the Court: FREDERICK C LYON Clerk of the Courts