{Converted to html by Jed Margolin}

Storey County Planning Commission Meeting

Condensed Deposition Transcript of

July 19, 2007

Peggy Hoogs & Associates
435 Marsh Ave.
Reno, NV  89509
Phone: (775) 327-4460
Fax: (775) 327-4450
Email:  xxx@yyyy.zzz
Internet: www.hoogsreporting.com





Storey County Courthouse
26 South B, 2nd Floor
Virginia City, Nevada

Reported by:           LORI URMSTON, CCR #51, RPR, RMR
                                                                CALIF. CCR #3217










Prezant & Mollath
6560 SW McCarran Blvd., Suite A
Reno, Nevada  89509

Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw & Ferrario
5585 Kietzke Lane
Reno, Nevada  89511



6:00 P.M.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I would like to call this meeting to order of the Storey County Planning Commission, Thursday, July 19th, 2007, Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom.

Madam Secretary, could we have a call of the roll for a quorum, please.

MS. GIBONEY:  Virgil.


MS. GIBONEY:  Linda Hammack.


MS. GIBONEY:  Peter Maholland.


MS. GIBONEY:  Austin Osborne.


MS. GIBONEY:  Larry Prater.


MS. GIBONEY:  Bret Tyler.


MS. GIBONEY:  Doug Walling.


We have a quorum in its entirety.  The next item is the Pledge of Allegiance, please.


(Pledge of Allegiance)

(Other matters were heard by the Planning Commission.)

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  I do want to thank the audience for their participation this evening and their interest in the subject of this evening.  Next item is Master Plan Amendment 2007-049 by Virginia Highlands, LLC.  Do we have a representative?



COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Before we get into presentations on this issue, the commission is in recent -- receipt of recent correspondence from attorneys representing the applicant challenging the necessity for this provision.  It seems to me that if there's a strong thinking on their part that this -- the process we're going through right now is unnecessary,  then we're wasting our time.  I would like the applicant to state whether or not they intend to pursue this issue.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  This evening?

MEMBER PRATER:  This evening.

MR. MOLLATH:  Stephen Mollath, attorney for the applicant.  I'm here with Mr. Mark Amodei, another attorney for the applicant.

To answer that first initial question, we are here


to have a hearing on both applications.  It's our opinion that the application for master plan amendment is not necessary, but I think it's necessary to go through the process to put on the record what the position of the county is in this regard and what the position of the applicant is in this regard.  So in --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  So you have just stated your position.

MR. MOLLATH:  Yeah, we need to go through and have the hearing and discuss the issue.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Which will happen.




COMMISSIONER PRATER:  My feeling is if they are of the opinion that this is unnecessary and for some reason it is denied, then there is a source then for legal recourse in this matter.  I feel that we're wasting our time.  If they want to pursue the legal recourses, they should do that in advance, and once that is all sorted out, then we can continue this.

MR. MOLLATH:  Well, what you have to understand, Mr. Chairman, is the legal process -- the precedent or the precursor to the legal process, if there should be any, and hopefully there will not be, is a making of a


record before this commission.  And you have certain protocols that you go through in order to make the record for the issues that are presented at that particular hearing.  After this body goes through its review of the matter, then it goes up to the County Commission.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, certainly.

MR. MOLLATH:  So we have to go through the protocol that the law prescribes under NRS 278 and Storey County
ordinances.  So to say that we're wasting our time, it really isn't a waste of time, this is a good use of time, because that's what is proscribed under the process that is set forth by the legislature in this county.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Can you explain to me why this wasn't brought up at the beginning of the process?


MR. MOLLATH:  Well, what you have to understand is the application for master plan amendment was requested
of the applicant by the county, and we acceded to that request and we filed two applications, one for a zone change and one for a master plan amendment.    Thereafter, we went through the process to look at what is appropriate for this development along with getting all our experts and our consultants to determine what


exactly is the -- what are the merits of this project. In that process we have determined that the master plan amendment we believe is not necessary.  And I say that because the zone change that we are asking for we believe is consistent with the existing master plan. If the zone change that we're asking for is consistent with the existing master plan, there's no need for an amendment to that master plan.  If the zone change is inconsistent with the master plan that's in place right now, then there's a need to ask for an amendment to the master plan.

So it's our position, and we believe that there is a consistency between the zone change application and the master plan, therefore, the master plan amendment application and the issues related to that are moot.

Now, I understand there may be a dispute between the county and the applicant in that regard, but that  issue needs to be aired on the record so all the issues are now contained so the county commissioners and yourselves can review the matter appropriately.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Mr. Chairman, could we ask our counsel for their opinion in this matter?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Certainly.  Please.

MR. GUNDERSON:  Mr. Mollath has correctly stated the law.  What the commission has before it tonight is


the applicant's request for a master plan amendment.  I think that it is a unique argument to make -- or file an   application for a master plan amendment and then argue that a master plan amendment is not necessary.  I think the applicant in making the application has acknowledged that a master plan amendment is required.

Otherwise, there would be no need for an application for a master plan amendment. And in the application that's been filed by the developer, the developer is required to set forth its justification for why it believes that a master planning amendment is required.  And if you take a look in your materials at page-- or at tab 5, it's document VH 30, the applicant makes the representation to the commission that it is justifying its request for a master plan amendment because the zoning sought is inconsistent with the current zoning.

As Mr. Mollath said, that's the threshold issue.  And the applicant has indicated that the property that's involved is currently zoned special industrial on this property.  What the applicant is seeking in its application is a mixed-use zoning.  Those are inconsistent zonings.  The zoning sought is inconsistent with the master plan.  So the applicant in my view is correct to pursue a master plan amendment


and has properly filed the documents; and that's the issue before the commission.

It is my opinion that the commission should address the application that is before it, and it's the application that's been noticed, it's the application that all of the people here in Virginia City and all the other places here in Storey County have had an opportunity to come in and voice their opinions upon, but frankly, this is what you have before you tonight is the applicant's request for a master plan amendment.  And I think that's what we need to hear.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I would like to ask the applicant's attorney if he concurs with our attorney or still has a difference of opinion.

MR. MOLLATH:  We still have a difference of opinion.



COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I would like to move that we continue this until the attorneys have reached a consensus and then at that time we can proceed with this issue.  I don't want to waste my time here if we're going to be -- everything is going to be tied up in courts for years over some kind of a legal issue.

MR. MOLLATH:  Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to


that, because that's a violation of due process.  We are entitled as the applicant to make a record before this commission in order to sort out for everybody's concerns all the issues and facts in this case.

You do not go from just a blanket we're going to continue this thing or deny this thing to District Court or litigation.  You go through and make the record that the legislature has proscribed as the manner in which you organize and process zoning applications and in the manner in which this county has adopted its zoning ordinances.  You cannot say:  Go away or come back until you get this sorted out.  We're here tonight to sort this out.  And I demand that we have --

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  That's why I'm asking you to sort out with our attorneys.


COMMISSIONER PRATER:  We don't have legal expertise here.  We don't know if this is valid or not.  You have raised the question.  I wish you would sort it out with our attorneys.  And then when there's a consensus as to the validity of this action, then I feel that it's appropriate for this commission to act on the thing.

In the meantime, I feel my time is wasted.  And if you insist on going on, I will not -- I'm not going to


participate tonight.  I'm sorry.


MR. MOLLATH:  That is your choice.  We are entitled to make the record and process the application under the Nevada Revised Statute 278 and this county's ordinances.  And you cannot deny, Mr. Chairman, the right of the applicant to do that in a contested zoning matter, because then we're right back to the District Court and the District Court will order you to hold a hearing.  And that is a waste of everybody's time.  And I'm trying to avoid that.

All I'm telling you tonight is we need to discuss this issue, we need to go through the record and you need to make a decision whether you think we need a master plan amendment or we don't need a master plan amendment.  And so be it, that's the decision that you make and those decisions are going to have to be supported by substantial evidence and the reason that you give.  We're entitled to know whether we need one or we don't need one.  And that's what this process here tonight is about.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  The chairman prefers to continue on with your objections, your definition of whether you want -- a master plan amendment is needed or not, the chair with the approval of the remainder of the board


would like to press on with this.

MR. MOLLATH:  Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Mr. Chairman, my motion still stands.  I would like to --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Excuse me.  Excuse me, sir.  Do we have a second to that motion?

The chair sees that there is -- the motion dies because of the lack of a second.

Can we have a motion to proceed for this evening?

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we deny a master plan amendment on the basis that we need to find out whether or not it is needed.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I'll second that motion.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  I think our counsel said that they applied for it and so they themselves must think it was needed when they applied.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Yeah, that does follow.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  The other thing I have is if we go straight to the zone change and the master plan doesn't provide for that kind of a zone change, and the master plan governs future growth, then we have a conflict.  We would have to turn down the zone change if we're going to try to conform that to our master plan.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, Virgil.

We have a motion on the floor for denial.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  You also have a second, Mr. Chairman.


Any further discussion on the matter?

MR. HAYMORE:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rehear the motion of why the denial and for what purpose.

MEMBER HAMMACK:  Until we can find out whether or not we need to hear this master plan amendment at all. If we did not need to change the master plan, we should only be hearing the zone change.  In other words, it needs to be worked out.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  Perhaps if that's the position they're taking now they should address us as to why we don't need to vote on the master plan amendment.  I'm not sure where they're coming from there.

MR. MOLLATH:  I would agree with that, Commissioner Bucchianeri, I think we need to --



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  You have an answer to --

MR. MOLLATH:  Yeah, I was just addressing Mr. Bucchianeri.


VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  I think we should have on the record why --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Oh, certainly.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  -- you don't believe that the zoning change involves our present master plan and why that doesn't have to be changed.

MR. MOLLATH:  I agree with that.  I think we should be able to do that.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, can I place on the record --


MR. MOLLATH:  -- issues regarding the master plan? Thank you.

I have provided to the Planning Commission staff, special counsel, Mr. Gunderson, the County Manager an application record in this binder that's in front of me, and I think some of you have copies of it, that have been tabbed 1 to 53 and Bates stampeded VH 001 to VH 0668.  The special counsel for the county, Mr. Gunderson, has also supplemented the record today which I had a copy of it with tabs numbered 50 through 120, and they are sequentially marked as document number Bates stamped 669 through 1048.  And I think Mr. Gunderson and I agree that this constitutes the written and/oral record that has proceeded this hearing on these two applications.


Would that be a correct statement, Mr. Gunderson?

MR. GUNDERSON:  I agree.

MR. MOLLATH:  So these two binders constitute the record upon which you review the two applications that exist which are the application for a master plan amendment and a zone change.

Now, let's go --  I'm not going to go into all the details right now as to the specific things that are contained in this record that are significant, but I want to make a couple of highlights.


MR. MOLLATH:  They contain the applications which are Exhibits 5 and 6 and the supplemental information, Exhibit 9, which was provided to Mr. Haymore and his staff.  It contains the transcripts of the prior Planning Commission meetings.  That's Exhibit 19, that being the meeting of 4/13/07.  It also contains a memo from Larry Prater dated April 23rd, '07, which is Exhibit 20, and our responses to that, which are tabs 26 to 30.  It contains the transcript of the Planning  Commission meeting at Lockwood, Exhibit 32; a chronological list of all the meetings that the applicant has had with staff and governmental officials.  That's Exhibit 42.  An economic analysis, Exhibit 43; the support letters from Washoe County,


Sparks and the City of Reno, Exhibit 44; a transcript of the Town Hall Meeting, Exhibit 45; the phasing letter on this project, how it would be phased ultimately, Exhibit 46; and then the issues and concerns letter and the discussions between counsel and myself concerning --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  How, sir, is that pertinent to this question?

MR. MOLLATH:  Okay.  So now I'm going to --  I wanted to make a record of the pertinent items that are contained in the record for purposes of discussing the issue that we're just now going to discuss.

So the threshold issue now becomes whether the application for a master plan amendment is appropriate. And in that regard, as I stated before, the issue that is before you is if the zoning that is applied for under application 050 is consistent with the master plan, then there is no need for a master plan amendment.  That's what you have to decide. We believe that a review of the master plan in its entirety clearly indicates that the uses applied for under the zone change, and the zone change that is being requested, are not inconsistent with the master plan.

And the law is if a zone change is consistent or


substantially compliant with the master plan, a master plan amendment does not have to be made.  And I think counsel would not agree -- would agree with me on that general legal principle.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Do you in fact agree?

MR. GUNDERSON:  That is a correct statement of the law, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MOLLATH:  Now, on Exhibit 30, tab 30, we have provided --  And that would really be exhibit --  Exhibit 30, tab 20, there is a comparison of the master plan conformance, and we have gone through every bit of the master plan and outlined why we are consistent with that master plan going through the goals and policies.

And essentially if you want to boil it down to a nutshell, it is that the zoning that is being requested enhances the economic diversification and economic opportunities of this county, it encourages and provides for adequate housing, it provides and encourages adequate water supply for the whole county, protects the petroglyphs, it provides for regional economic development and regional means, everything with the adjacent counties and the changes that have occurred there in the last 15 years, it provides for housing and the land uses in the great interior.  And all those are specifically set forth in the master plan



So what you have to do on this threshold question is determine --  And I would invite staff to comment, because they're the people that you look at to adjudicate and administer your master plan and zoning ordinances.  I would ask them to comment as to whether there is an inconsistency as a matter of land use planning and zoning operational function, because that's what your zoning administrator does, whether there's an inconsistency between the master plan and    the zoning request for it. If there's an inconsistency, then we need to have a master plan amendment.  If there's no inconsistency or if the zone change is in compliance or substantial compliance with the master plan, there is no need for a master plan amendment.  That's what you have to determine here.


MR. HAYMORE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Going back --  And I'm going to read right from our master plan on page 2 at the bottom paragraph.  "A  master plan is not a zoning ordinance.  It carries no penalties under the law, rather it is a guide to development.  It sets forth a view of the future, a direction for development growth and a guide for


community action.

"However, a zoning ordinance is a law.  It creates districts and land use regulations.  Land owners must abide by the zoning ordinance.  Violations of the zoning ordinance are the same as violations of any law and are punishable by fines and even imprisonment.  The master plan forms a basis for the designation of the various zoning districts.

"The relationship between the master plan and a zoning ordinance should be considered.  Since the master plan is a statement of direction, the zoning ordinance should be only amended in conformity with the master plan.  In fact, once a master plan is officially adopted, non-conformity with the master plan is ample reasons for rejecting an amendment to the zoning ordinance.  In short, the zoning ordinance expresses more closely what is.  The master plan expresses what should be."

If we go back --  And the applicant and their counsel has brought out many points of where their plan for their new proposal meets requirements of the master plan, which are general points and goals for all of Storey County, too.  You could fit almost every one of those in any part of Storey County.

On the objections and goals of the River District


we come out and say, "Objection 5.3:  Define and designate an area, including and surrounding the Aerojet facility, as high-risk industrial zoning with appropriate buffer zones."  So back in the master plan we identified that we need to have a special industrial zoning for out there for the Aerojet.

Real quick history.  Hi-Shear came in, got his special use permit back in 1986.  There were some problems that we had out there and so a show cause hearing was held here in front of the Storey County Commissioners to pull their special use permit.

The applicant sat here in front of the county commissioners and said, "We want to be a good neighbor, we'll comply."  A couple of days later Mr. Mollath as the representative of Defense System and Hi-Shear sued the county saying that they believed the master -- that their special use permit says this.

After legal counsel -- and I believe Virgil was the District Attorney at that time, we went through and came with an agreement with Hi-Shear and Defense System what their special use permit said.  That's why we recognized that and came back in the master plan, and the master plan wasn't written then, and came back and identified it that we need a special zoning out there.

The applicant bought 11 sections of that land that


has a special use permit that govern that, and we created a zoning because the new owners came in, Aerojet at the time, which Aerojet mothballed the facility and never used it and turned around and sold it to TRW which the applicant bought it from TRW.  They transferred their special use permits to the next succeeding buyer.  At that time we created the special industrial zoning for the protection of that land, a buffer zone for the residents and everything else.

The applicant then further bought another 1800 acres which is about 600 acres of heavy industrial zone and the remainder of forestry zone.  And so I feel, and I told the applicant, that they're changing substantially the special industrial zoning out there and the uses that the zoning by law allows them to do and that they would need a master plan amendment to be able to go forward with the next step and ask for a zone change.

And so I still feel, and let the record say, that they need to go through this process.  We did the same process, and I don't want to tie them together, numerous times on forestry zoned to different to forestry off of 50 that's been in front of you, and we changed those zones and we made them do the same thing.

TRI, the industrial center, in our master plan we


identified as a good place to have an industrial center, so they did not have to come for a master plan amendment, but they did have to come for a zone change.

So it's my recommendation to this board that we hear the master plan amendment and fill out and have findings of if that's where we want to go as a vision with that land in question, not talking about the PUC, that's another whole issue and it shouldn't have come up.  We're just looking at the vision of that land that the applicant has submitted, is this a good zoning, do we want to change the zoning, do we want a differ vision for out there.  And that's what in front of you   tonight.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  That would apply to the master plan.

MR. HAYMORE:  That's the master plan.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  That's the master plan.



COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  Concurring with Mr. Haymore, there are also eight other points of the master plan itself that do not concur with what the applicant is saying, in other words, the master plan does not fit with what the applicant is asking.  Therefore, a master plan amendment, I believe, would need to be looked at


before anything else.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  The chair feels the same ways.

COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  I've got the eight points if you would like me to --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  Your argument is put in that big thick book there that I got about two days ago.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  We do have a motion on the floor and we've got a second.

MR. WHITTEN:  Mr. Chairman.


MR. WHITTEN:  For the record, Pat Whitten, Storey County Manager.  I might also add, because apparently in some of the dialogues and some of the documentation equality and fairness in the process with TRI has come up, and Dean mentioned something with TRI that is very important.  The master plan I believe in our opinion does call for industrial processing out at TRI, it does not call for residential.  If TRI all of a sudden wanted to do residential, they would be back before this very same process before you.  And I want that to be clear.


MR. MOLLATH:  Fair enough.  I don't disagree with what Mr. Haymore said as to the state of the issue


that's before you.  I think we need to decide, you know, whether a master plan -- you need to decide whether a master plan amendment is appropriate or not, tell us the reasons why and then we go to the master plan amendment.


MR. MOLLATH:  Well, I think we need to put that in a formal motion.

MR. HAYMORE:  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that for the record that Austin puts out those other eight.

COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  I have them listed right here in front of me.


COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  All right.  It starts with Goal 1.2, which is number 1, "A future goal of this master plan is derived essentially from a desire to preserve and improve the present quality of life in Storey County."  And it goes further to say, "The potential threat of a change is perceived to come from large-scale subdivisions.

2:  "The zoning ordinance should only be amended In conformity with the master plan."

Goal 1, Chapter 4:  "Encourage adequate housing is provided to residents of Storey County through the zoning and planning."  That could be looked at as


current or future people living in the county.

Number 2 on that, "Encourage development of affordable housing."  This you could see in the past is done through Painted Rock.

Goal 1, Chapter 5, number 1:  "Ensure that present and future county residents have adequate water supply meeting safe drinking standards."

There's been no proof at this time that there's adequate water supply.

Number 2:  "Require all proposed development furnish proof of availability of owned water rights to adequate water meeting safe drinking standards before necessary land use or planning applications are approved.

3:  "Actively protesting or granting of water rights or land development proposals which will have a negative impact on the quality or quantity of Storey County residents' water supply."

Goal 4.11:  "Cooperate with ranchers, property owners and interested groups in maintaining wild horses and other grazing animals, but in numbers which will not exceed capacity of the land."

Goal 1, Chapter 8:  Protection of the historic resources," meaning the petroglyphs, which leads to number 2, "Protecting the petroglyphs from vandalism."


At this point there's no undisputable proof that this has been done.

Number 3:  "Archeological sites."  It continues on to say the same thing with petroglyphs.

And then there's the last one, Goal 1, Chapter 9, "Maintain a healthy  environment for all residents of the county," and most specifically in this case the Highlands.  And there's a list of things that do not fit inside the master plan.


We do have a motion; we do have a second.  Lydia, would you like to rephrase your motion or just repeat your motion?

MEMBER HAMMACK:  My motion was to deny it because we were hearing here that it was not needed and now I'm hearing otherwise, so I withdraw my motion.


VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  I think they have to argue or try to convince us that it's consistent with the master plan or not needed, one or the other.

MR. HAYMORE:  And that's not on the agenda.  What is on the agenda is their application, and they need to present their application as stated on the agenda.

MR. MOLLATH:  I agree with that, Mr. Haymore.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Planning Commission, would you


like to continue on with the agenda?

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I believe that's your call, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  The chairman would like to continue on with our agenda.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  Wait.  Where are we on this one?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, that's what we're -- that's what we're going to start the formal hearing on this evening. Appreciate your input, sir.

MR. MOLLATH:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So let me kind of summarize where I think we are at this point in time.  You've made the determination that a master plan amendment is necessary --


MR. MOLLATH:  -- because you believe that the zoning application that we have made is inconsistent with the master plan so we have to change the master plan to allow the zoning application to go forward, is that correct?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I think that was the original concept --

MR. MOLLATH:  Okay.  All right.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  -- months ago.


MR. MOLLATH:  Now the question before you is whether a master plan amendment is appropriate or not. That's the next level of inquiry.  Would you agree, counsel?

MR. GUNDERSON:  I would, that's what's before the commission tonight.

MR. MOLLATH:  Okay.  Now, in that regard, let me kind of have you turn to the -- again, to an exhibit which is essentially Exhibit 40.  And there's a board I think over there that kind of compares the two, if I may.  We've got two boards here.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I would ask Mr. Smith, is this in fact your presentation?

MR. SMITH:  Yes.


MR. MOLLATH:  Now, let me also hand out a list of all our consultants that are here this evening.  I'll give a copy to the clerk.  I have copies for all the members of the commission and staff.

We, of course, have Blake Smith who is the managing partner of Cordevista, Joseph Cacioppo who is Vice President of Resource Concepts; Robert Kautz from Environmental consultants, Eric Hubbard, Cory Shupe and Mark Amodei.  They're here to answer any questions that you may have concerning this matter.


Now, let's talk about this master plan amendment and why we believe that if the powers to be determine that one is needed why I think one is appropriate.  As you know, over the last 15 years, Storey County has changed quite a bit, especially over in the area by the Truckee River, Lockwood and that area.  There's been a great change over in that area and, in fact, the development of the county has been such that probably the largest -- at least it's been advertised that the largest industrial park in the world is sitting in your county.

That has given rise to a great amount of activity, industrial and commercial activity, coming in from Washoe County, coming in from Interstate 80, the highway, the road, the railroads and such.  So the question that is posed before you today is:  Is that use that was in place on the Cordevista property by Hi-Shear and its predecessors back in the 1980s, which consists of a rocket manufacturing testing processing facility, explosives and such, appropriate for the county today and whether the county wants to see that type of use developed in that particular location as time goes on into this millennium.

We believe when you look at all the -- and analyze all the provisions of the master plan, the master plan


specifically talks about integrating this county into the region as a whole.  We have to recognize that there is a great amount of development occurring in Washoe County, occurring in Lyon County, occurring through the Interstate 80 corridor, the Highway 50 corridor that has changed and put Virginia City and Storey County in the center of a great metropolitan area.  So you have to think in your mind:  Do we want a special industrial zone that allows all these types of uses to be the centerpiece of our county or do we want to look at the other elements of the master plan and say we want to fit into the regional policies and goals and direction that this northern Nevada area is going.

You will see in the record --  And I'm not going to refer to everything in the record.  It's all in front of you, it's detailed, it's voluminous.  But you have letters of support from the Mayor of the City of Reno, the Mayor of the City of Sparks, the Chairman of the Washoe County Commission.  You know what's going on down in Reno as far as economic  development.  And so you have to ask yourself:  Is the current special industrial zoning appropriate 15 years later, 20 years later in 2007 and 2008 for Storey County?

And looking at that, you have to look at the master plan as a whole and not just look at the Hi-Shear


special use permit and the reasons why that special use permit caused the creation of that or the delineation of that particular use in the master plan and caused the placement of that zoning on that particular property at that time. As Mr. Haymore pointed out, I was counsel for Hi-Shear back in the '80s and I'm familiar with that and I know what happened.  That was carved out because it had to be carved out, not necessarily because it was something good for the community or bad for the community, but that was carved out by virtue of a legal  process.

We're here 15 years later looking at the future of this community and deciding, well, we have a huge industrial park at the other end of this county that there's no connection to, and people are coming into this community.  Do we want to grow with the surrounding community or do we want to leave that as a special industrial zone for these particular types of uses?

In essence what you have to ask yourself tonight is:  Do we want to diversify our investment portfolio?

Right now in your investment portfolio you have one asset, and that asset is a special industrial-zoned property for a high-intensity, hazardous waste,


explosive type of use.

And so you have to look for the next 50 years and you say:  Does Storey County want to have in their community as the center part of their community surrounded by all the growth in northern Nevada, do we want to have that, or do we want to have a master plan development that then has many, many parcels of diversified uses that go onto the tax rolls of this community that constitute, you know, apartments, single-family homes, stores, buildings, shopping centers that build the tax base to allow the county to grow and meet the needs of not only the northern part of the community but also the area in Virginia City and the Highlands and provide for all the infrastructure that this community has to deal with over the next 50 years?

And the easiest way to deal with that is to look to the future, not look to the past, and say:  How do we assimilate ourselves to the economic engine that's just down the hill in Washoe County, Reno and Sparks, Interstate 80 and the 21st century?

That's the issue that you have to look at tonight and that's the issue that we believe all the documents in the record clearly indicate that, A, there is a basis in the current master plan to change that master


plan to allow this planned unit development use and, secondly, the nature of the facts, the nature of all the technical planning, the nature of the economics dictate that this is a good move, a good economic move, for the health, safety and welfare of this community, both economically and socially, in the future.

There is the chart, current zoning versus proposed zoning.  That's the choice that you have, current special industrial zoning or proposed mixed-use zoning. And Storey County benefits.  That's the decision that's before you tonight.

Now, that's your call.  This is the legislative process.  You can, you know, make any decision that you want.  I can't tell you what to do; Mr. Gunderson can't tell you what to do.  And I'm not trying here tonight to tell you what to do, I'm encouraging you to have vision for this community and not have a look back and say:  Well, we had this special industrial zone then and that's what we want.  Look for all the future of the community, what this community is going to need in the next 25 to 50 years, where the community is going to get the money to do that, how is the community going to service its schools, its infrastructure, its roads, its growing population and integrate financially and socially into the community that it has become a part


of and which has become readily apparent in the last 15 years as to what has occurred in Washoe County and Sparks. That's the decision you've got to make. So that is the basis based upon all the documents in the record here that you have to make tonight; and we encourage you to make a finding that a master plan amendment to change it from the existing special industrial type of master plan use to a PUD or mixed use is appropriate.

Now, those arguments are basically the same arguments that I use to then change the zoning from special industrial to the mixed use, but they're inter-tied.  So that's the issue that's before you and the evidence that's --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, certainly they are.

MR. MOLLATH:  Pardon me?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Certainly they are.  Now, are you saying that you do not have an objection to the process of a master plan amendment?

MR. MOLLATH:  No, I'm not saying that.  We preserved --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Yes, you did, sir.

MR. MOLLATH:  No, no.  Listen, what you have to understand is we have a legal position that we believe that we are consistent with that, but you've made the


decision that the application has to be processed.  And that is the legislative and legal way to do that.  We recognize that, we acquiesce to that and we say fine, if you believe that we have to go through the process, we'll go through the process.  Now, I don't necessarily agree that you're correct in that determination, but that's my right under the zoning laws --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, certainly it is.

MR. MOLLATH:  -- to disagree, right?  And it's your right to disagree with me.  All I'm saying is that we've come to a position at this point in time that the county and this planning commission has determined that the use that we're asking for is inconsistent with the master plan for the reasons stated.

All right.  So we're saying:  Okay, fine, we want to change the master plan.  Even though we disagree with that position, let's talk about the reasons why we believe the master plan should be changed.  And that's what's contained in this big book here that Virgil has read every page of it I'm sure.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Of which we're very well aware. This is, in fact, our fourth public meeting.

MR. MOLLATH:  Right.  And this has been debated, you know, many times long and hard.  And we're here tonight saying what's contained in this book, what's


contained in the record that's before you and questions that may be asked by you of the consultants here today on these very important issues to the community, we believe that the master plan amendment should be granted and be allowed to have mixed use.  That's where we are today.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

MR. HAYMORE:  Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  A comment from the chair at this time.  There has been an attempt to lead this panel to believe that the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Park feels that there is a great need for a project like this.  We are in receipt of a letter from a representative from TRI, and I would like at this time to have our County Manager read it, please.

Everybody has got a copy but you.

Thank you.

MR. WHITTEN:  Thank you.  Mr. Chair, again, for the record, Pat Whitten.  I received this afternoon a letter that I will read as follows:

"To the Storey County Planning Commission, regarding Cordevista.  Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a principal partner of the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, parenthetically TRI."

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Sir, speak up just a little.


MR. WHITTEN:  Yes, okay.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  You can use one of those mics if you choose to.


MR. WHITTEN:  All right.  I'll try that. Okay.  Again, I received a letter this afternoon that's addressed to the planning commission and it reads as follows:

"Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a principal partner of the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, parenthetically TRI, regarding the proposed Cordevista subdivision.

"First, I would like to preface my comments by saying I appreciate the outstanding relationship we have historically enjoyed between TRI and Storey County.  As such, I fully support whatever decisions the county might make as it considers this and other similar project proposals."

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Is there a cell phone in the crowd?

MR. WHITTEN:  No, it's the chimes of the clock.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  At home I turn it off.  Excuse me.



"I would like to make a few comments
for the record in my desire to ensure the commissioners are clear where TRI may or may not be involved in this new project.  My comments are as follows:

Bullet point:  "I understand that TRI has been mentioned as a primary justification for the Cordevista proposal.  Specifically the need to balance rooftops with TRI business employee growth has been repeatedly referenced.  Based on my ongoing experiences in dealing with site selectors and national firms, it appears that nothing is impeding their desire to locate in TRI in Storey County.  In fact, all involved seem most satisfied with existing housing availability on a regional basis.

"When we mentioned plans by others to develop over 17,000 acres of the southern most portion of the original ranch property into 35,000 housing units," this would be the Lyon County portion, "coupled with the 2,400 plus acre Painted Rock properties project estimated to encompass over 3,000 additional homes, the potential only seems to more clearly lead prospects to the conclusion that we are the place to be.

"While additional projects such as Cordevista do not represent a detriment to our further development, we feel they are not essential to our continued marketing success at this point in time."


Bullet point 2:  "For the record, TRI has not entered into any agreement pertaining to establishing access roads from the Cordevista site into the TRI project.

"Again, I wish to be clear that while the development LLC members of TRI may not be closed to such a concept at some future point, and following extensive traffic studies with impacts identified to our project infrastructure, we may do so only when it becomes advantageous to both the industrial park project and with the approval of Storey County."

Bullet point 3:  "TRI has not, and is not currently, negotiating for the sale or transfer of water rights to Cordevista or their principle agents. In fact, we continue to work diligently through the permitting process to procure sufficient rights to develop the park to its optimum potential.  It's painful to occasionally lose major companies due to an inability to deliver the water sufficient to meet their needs even when we believe it is already contained within our property borders.

"In conclusion, I thank you for your diligence in making sure the future of our county is well planned and managed.  As a proud partner of Storey County, we are confident that we shall continue to grow and

prosper in the right directions and retain all that motivated us to choose this great part of northern Nevada in the first place.  Sincerely, Lance Gilman.



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Lydia, do you have -- in fact, do you want to change your motion?  It's my call to continue on this master plan amendment hearing.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  I would still like to hear it.


COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  I would like to hear specifically about leaving it the way it is what our water needs would be if it was still a special industrial zone.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Oh, that's going to be part of our question.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  And I would need to have one of our (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  I think I would like to open this to the -- at this point the planning commission's questions of the applicant, please.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Mr. Chair, can we start at this end?



COMMISSIONER PRATER:  As long as we have the attorneys here involved, another issue, question.  I would like to direct your attention to tab 48, correspondence from the law firm of Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw and Ferrario dated, again, July 13, 2007.  I don't know if we need to read the entire letter into this record, but it appears there's an attempt by the attorneys to impugn the integrity of certain county officials, especially an unnamed commissioner.

I'll read just part of a paragraph that says, "What is particularly disturbing about this circumstance is the fact that the apparent source of the special scrutiny --"  Earlier they talked about this process seeming to take a long time and meeting a lot of roadblocks  "-- the apparent source of this special scrutiny is a commissioner who has significant and as yet undisclosed ties to a potentially competing project in the same market area."

It goes on and it discusses a letter that was dated clear back in September 2006 from the same attorneys, several references to TRIC in that.  And to my knowledge, this September 21st letter, this is the first time it's become a matter of record.

It seems to me that the applicant through his


attorneys are starting to take a position to impugn the integrity of this commission, the county administration on the basis that whatever we do is being swayed by unnamed county officials.  And I would appreciate it if the -- if counsel -- the applicant's counsel would address this issue.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Do they still feel that way?

MR. AMODEI:  Mr. Chairman, as the author of the letter may I speak to the commission?


MR. AMODEI:  Thank you.  For your record, Mark Amodei, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw and Ferrario, the author of the September '06 letter as well as -- that appears earlier in your materials at tab 5 or 6 or something like that, it may be 2, and also the one at tab 48.

First of all, Commissioner Prater, I would not agree with your characterization of impugning the integrity of this commission.  I would indicate that both letters were referenced and included in your record to set forth the circumstance and the history of this project from when it was purchased, when informal discussions were begun with county staff and when they were continued with county staff, ended in the application process and went through the public meeting


process, informal and formal, before this commission.

So both of those letters were reacting to specific circumstances that happened to this applicant before they were an applicant and after an applicant.  And they were also the result of direct conversations with your staff.

Nothing in those letters in any way, shape or form, and nobody should leave this room with the impression, meant to impugn the work of staff of Storey County or the members of this commission as you weigh the factors, as you are duty bound to do, to decide how you vote on any application that comes before you.  Rather, the initial letter which was addressed to Mr. Whitten, which was never responded to, and the most recent one were an attempt to say:  If there are reasons for treating this project differently than the ones that the author of the letter, myself, had experienced in previous representations before the county commission, before this planning commission and before county staff, we would just like to know why, because in the face of continued failures to say this is why this is going to be done differently, all you can draw from that is it is being done differently.

And when you have reports from people in your staff that indicate that they are being threatened about even


talking to an applicant and you have indications that follow that along--  The people of the county are free to think what they want on any application; that's America.  You are free to vote any way you decide you want to.  But after representing the county in the TRI process ten years ago, there was a gentleman here from Barrick in the western 102 process, before your staff and your commission, the Painted Rock folks, the basis of those letters was there's been a sea change in the way this is being received.

Now, that doesn't mean it needs to be approved, but it is being received very differently.  And the source of a lot of that was attributed by your staff to a single county commissioner.

So those letters were an attempt not to do things behind the closed door or sweep things under the rug, to merely say in the open, it's like, listen, if there's a reason for this being done differently, great, we would like to know what it is.  If there isn't, we would like to be treated in accordance with the rules that apply to everybody that comes before Storey County.

So the concern was we just want to be treated in accordance with your particular provisions.  There is nothing in those letters that should be interpreted to


in any way, shape or form impugn this commission, Mr. Prater, or any of the staff members of the county. If that's not an adequate answer, I would be happy to respond to a follow-up question.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, the special scrutiny that was spoke of, this project never received any special scrutiny more than we've ever applied to any applicant that's ever come before us in my 18 years.

MR. AMODEI:  I think the context, Mr. Chairman, is important in that it was receiving special scrutiny from one individual.

MR. WHITTEN:  Mr. Chairman, may I reply?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Yes, please, Mr. Whitten.

MR. WHITTEN:  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Amodei or Senator Amodei --  I'm not sure which role he's here for.

MR. AMODEI:  Well, your record should reflect that.


MR. WHITTEN:  -- raises a couple of issues that I believe I'm compelled to respond to.  And I'm certainly
not going to get --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We can't hear you.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Give Pat a mic.

MR. WHITTEN:  Senator Amodei raises a couple of issues that I feel compelled to respond to.  The September 2006 letter addressed to me, it's in your


packages, was not responded to by me.  It was reviewed by our then legal counsel for guidance.  And, quite frankly, due to the fact that there seemed to be little to no merit to the issues raised in that letter, I opted not to respond.

I might add also that that very same letter references a meeting that Dean Haymore and myself did have with the applicant in which we gave him for lack of a better phrase kind of a real-world perspective as to the obstacles that he faced with a project of this  size.

And I might also reference that subsequent to that first letter, the September 2006 letter, there is a letter from the applicant, from Blake, addressed, I believe, to both Dean and I that thanked us for taking time in outlining what would be needed to proceed with that process.  So that's why there is no response to that September 2006 letter.

The other issue that keeps coming up over and over again is the fact that we are dealing with this application differently.  You know, I don't know what Senator Amodei would expect us to do.  If we had a single home going in on 40 acres, you know, would we look at it differently than we're going to look at 17,500 homes, the answer is hell, yes.  You know, this


is --


MR. WHITTEN:  This is a completely different size project with completely different citizen reactions that I think as officials of the county you are responsible to listen to and to take into consideration as part of the process, both at the staff level and at the commission levels.

I might add that the TRI project in which Senator Amodei was key counsel, you know, went through a similar process in my opinion for many, many months, many public meetings, much scrutiny, and for good or for bad, many attorneys involved in the process at the same time.  We're proud of TRI, we're proud of the efforts that we put it through to get it there.

Another thing that he mentioned is we want to be treated the same.  Well, you know, if we're talking Painted Rock--  And again, they are an apple and an orange in my opinion.  Painted Rock came before you in public hearings, at least two public hearings as I recall, you know, and at the same time received absolutely no public objection that I recall.  And I might also add that Senator Amodei was the legal staff to that same project.

And last I guess I want to say for the record --


Well, there's a few things.  Excuse me.  I can't sit quiet when Mark gets up and says that.  You know, how are we looking at future projects like this?  There are others to come.  Dean and I have already met with one. There are others.  And we again have basically told them the same thing, projects of this size, projects of this scope, projects in these areas are facing a major uphill battle and probably aren't the type of thing that at this stage we think that the citizens and the people of Storey County want.

Are we considering looking at advisory boards, all you have to do is listen to the county commission. This past Tuesday again Commissioner Kershaw raised the perspective that we might be looking at citizen advisory boards to help guide us through some of these larger projects as we go forward.

And again, for the record I want to say that no commissioner, no county commissioner, has ever threatened me in any part of my job performance for any reason.  Thank you.



MR. AMODEI:  Mr. Chairman, may I?


MR. AMODEI:  May I follow up?  Are there any


further questions on this issue of Commissioner Prater's?

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I would like to--  I feel the same as Mr. Whitten in that it should be obvious that a project of this scope--  You're talking about increasing the county's population 10, 12 fold at least, and anything like that is an extremely significant impact on this county.  And there have been very few projects even similar to that over the years that I've been-- lived in this county.  And I'm proud to live in this county; it's very unique.  I don't necessarily feel that there is an obligation by this county to conform to everything that's going on around us.


COMMISSIONER PRATER:  We do have an obligation to hear the applicant, hear his arguments on the questions and submit that he can do this in the -- for the betterment of the community.  And I believe he's getting that opportunity.  I don't believe that as alleged in here that there are outside forces that are going to sway our vote other than the citizens of this county and the merits of the application.

MR. AMODEI:  And, Commissioner Prater, I don't disagree with the statement you just made.  But when we


do these things, whether it's on the county level or another level, if I may, Mr. Chairman, we do them based on rules, ordinances in your case, statutes in mine. And when Mr. Mollath talks about making a record of what the process was in this particular project --  And I don't dispute that every project is unique.  When this is part of the experience --  And if I have offended Mr. Whitten or any member of the staff by indicating what --  I guess we just have a different view of what the practical realities discussions were. And that's fine, I'll leave it at that.

However, I do think that we do have a set of rules that we follow in every jurisdiction in the state and to the extent --  And you folks have to make a decision based upon what's in the record before you.  It's our job to make sure the record is complete for when it goes up to the county commission.

This is one of the aspects that I sincerely believe was experienced.  It's not something that ought to make you vote for it or against it, but it's something that I think I have an obligation to have in your record so that when it's reviewed up above for compliance with the ethical standards that apply to all of us in elected or appointed office that it's been disclosed instead of somebody being --  Now, that shouldn't be the


reason why you vote for or against.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  It's not going to be, sir.

MR. AMODEI:  Pardon?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  It's not going to be.

MR. AMODEI:  I understand that, but I want --  Since the context of the letter is being interpreted one way, I want to provide some context.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, I think the subject has been sufficiently addressed personally.

MR. AMODEI:  Thank you.



MR. AMODEI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  You're quite welcome.  Thank you.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  Mr. Chairman, may I speak?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Go right ahead.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  A lot of people since July 1, 1999 have purchased property in Storey County. They purchased property knowing that there was this special industrial zone in a particular area.  I believe that we need to leave it alone, leave it the way it is.  That was in our zoning, that was -- Regardless of whether the master plan needs to be amended, that needs to be looked at down the road and


see what kind of things need to change in the master plan, but I believe we need to leave it where it is now, because the majority of the people that purchased property in this county knew what the zoning was in this county.  It's right here, July 1, 1999.



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I would like to continue on with questions from the planning commissioners of the applicant.

COMMISIONER MAHOLLAND:  I do want to take the time to publicly acknowledge the work of Pat Whitten and the staff of the county for the report that they put together.  I truly appreciate that.  It helped me out a lot in sorting through some of the initial issues we had.  I've asked a lot of questions through the process, so at this time I don't have any.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  On this side, any questions of the applicant?

Okay.  At this time I would like to open the floor up to the public which have filled out their declarations of testimony.  I would encourage you folks to try not to duplicate what your neighbor just said. If he said it correctly and if he said it thoroughly enough, hopefully that's sufficient for you.


On the top for this evening is Bill Sjovangen.

MR. SJOVANGEN:  Mr. Chairman, I believe all my points have been covered this evening.


MR. SJOVANGEN:  And I thank you.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Jeanne Gribben.  Ma'am.

MS. GRIBBEN:  Hi.  Jean Gribben, president of the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association.  I know we haven't been on record yet to talk about this project.  We are completely against it.  We want to leave the open space open.  We know there's not a lot of horses that live up there, but, you know, when he talks about wildlife and having, you know, areas for the horses, well, you can't train the horses where to go.  If there's grass, they're going to go.  And we just want it on record that we're in support of the horses and the wildlife out there.



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Mark Joseph Phillips.  Sir.

MR. PHILLIPS:  I'm Mark Joseph Phillips, and my testimony would be inappropriate at this time.  Thank you very much.


Jim Watson.


MR. WATSON:  Yeah, Jim Watson here.  Real quickly. Most of my questions got answered anyways and most of my statements got made.  I'm still not sure about one thing.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Sir, could you come up to the mic.  It's right there, that little guy.  Thanks.

MR. WATSON:  I keep hearing that we're here -- that the planning commission is here tonight I've heard several times recently to decide whether we want industrial or residential.  I came here to hear if we are going to change the master plan or not.  All of the other --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  That is the item.

MR. WATSON:  All of the other stuff is-- you know, I don't know why this is being discussed.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Of course, as you would understand, it's part of the presentation.

MR. WATSON:  I understand.  Due to the many contradictions in the many hearings I've been to regarding this project, many contradictions and so forth through these meetings and a lot of answers that we've not gotten on questions that have been asked, I just -- I don't think we should approve it.  I would leave it up to the discretion of the board whether we at this time put it on hold or whether they disapprove




Here's an old friend, Gerry Olson.

MS. OLSON:  Limping up.  Yes, I'm Gerry Olson from the Virginia City Highlands.  I just wanted to correct a couple of what I think are misinterpretations.  The impression has been given that this project is way out in the hinterlands and it will-- you know, we wouldn't even know it existed when, in fact, it is just over the hill from where the Deans have built a home which is at the border -- the northeast border of the Highland Ranches.  It's just over the hill.  It will be visible from the higher homesites in the Highlands.  It is visible from the top of Cartwright as you're coming into the Highlands and it will be visible from the highway just below the summit as you're going towards Virginia City.  That was --  It was just that.

I don't think that we should change the master plan because we have 19,000 acres between the Highlands and the river district, it's known as Sunny Hills Ranchos, and perfectly -- the impression is that the only place that can be developed in this whole area out there is this valley that Cordevista plans to develop.  And that is not true.  There's rolling hills and high plateaus. And I know the Sunny Hills Ranchos people are waiting


in the offing.  If they are going to build ranchos, that might be all right, but to build -- to be able to subdivide because of the change in the master plan, which they will undoubtedly try to do, too, even if they have to go to court to do it.  That's my impression.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, ma'am.

Tom Purkey.

MR. PURKEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm Tom Purkey.  I'm a resident of Virginia City.  It seems to me this hearing as it's advertised here is all about amendments to the master plan.  I have called the planning department trying to see what those amendments actually are.  The amendments haven't been written.

How is the public supposed to respond to such a vague thing that we're going to change the master plan? What is being proposed?  I don't know.  I haven't been able to find out.  Has anybody written the amendments? Where are the amendments?  I haven't seen them.  I think the public has a right to see them.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Dean?  Where is he?

MR. HAYMORE:  Did you call me?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Yeah.  Do you want to --

MR. HAYMORE:  As I understand, the applicant made an application to amend the master plan to -- for mixed


uses, and those mixed uses would fit into a further zoning as he has applied as a second application as a planned unit development.  That amendment would allow housing, it would allow stores, offices, schools.  It would be a basic little city by itself.  And that's what he's asked for is mixed uses.

MR. PURKEY:  Mr. Chairman, I haven't used up all my time yet.


MR. PURKEY:  I haven't used all my time yet.  That has to do with the zoning ordinance.  There's two things here, there's the master plan and there's the zoning ordinance.  Everything we're talking about is the zoning ordinance.  I think Mr. Osborne raised all the questions in the master plan that rightly do not conform to what Cordevista is going to do.  I think that's proper.

But which of those are you talking about changing? You know, there's Section 1.2, paragraph 2, Mr. Osborne already quoted, 90 percent of the county land is in private hands, that the development is a threat.  Are you going to change that?

Once the master plan is officially adopted, non-conforming with the master plan is ample reason for rejecting the amendment to the zoning ordinance.  Are


you going to change that?  That doesn't conform to Cordevista.

Require all proposed development furnish proof of the availability of owned rights to adequate water meeting safe drinking water standards before necessary land use or building permit applications are approved. We haven't seen anything.  I haven't as a member of the public.  I don't know if the planning commission has or if the county commission has.  I haven't seen anything. That doesn't fit with Cordevista, so we're going to have to change that one.

The issue of affordable housing.  Mr. Smith stated at one of the previous meetings that he doesn't do  affordable housing.  That's not his thing, that's fine, but that's not in accordance with the master plan, so we're going to have to change that.

So I as a member of the public would like to see exactly what changes would have to be made in order to approve Cordevista.  I haven't seen that.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Comments from the--

MR. PURKEY:  The devil's in the details, and I haven't seen the details.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Under the current master plan the area that's under all this scrutiny, certain types of industrial uses can be made without zone changes or


anything else.  What's being proposed is a change to the master plan where with the zone change a mixed-use development can be made.  I don't know, to me it's been pretty clear from the outset.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  It has for the board, too.

Mr. Purkey, I think that's a sufficient answer. Thank you.

Anita Strong.

MS. STRONG:  I have nothing further to add.  Thank you.


MS. STRONG:  I have nothing further to add.  Thank you.


Kirk Jensen.

MR. JENSEN:  Kirk Jensen.  Question for Mr. Smith. Why would a group of investors invest all this money, I assume there's a lot of money, I don't know how much, on a particular piece of land and it's all based on -- the worth of the land is all based on changing the master plan, in other words, if that doesn't go, what have you got?  What did you gamble on doing that?  Is that a fair question?

In other words, all I'm saying is if I bought property, for example, down in Smith Valley and it was


zoned -- it was zoned for something other than what I wanted to use it for, would it be worth it to me to buy that land and pray to God that the zoning commission down there would pass it through?  In other words, you're gambling a heck of a lot of money on something being passed here.  As it stands now the way I understand it, it doesn't fly.  Is that correct?

MR. SMITH:  Would you like me to respond?


MR. SMITH:  Blake Smith, managing partner of the Virginia Highlands.  Sir, we acquired the property. The property has current zoning on it, the special industrial that we're addressing right now.  We don't -- The purpose for the application is because we don't feel that that's the best use for that property.  So, yes, we did purchase it with the special industrial, and we can build special industry, we just don't think that is the best use for that property.

MR. JENSEN:  In other words, do you think you can make --  I'm a born-again capitalist.  Do you think you can make more profit changing it the way you want to do it?

MR. SMITH:  I think that the county currently has the TRI park which is 102,000 acres of industrial combined with the 8,000 acres of our industrial, that


that -- that there is not enough -- that is so much industrial that you could never develop -- it would be centuries possibly to develop that much industrial.  So from our standpoint looking at it, it is a better use and a complementary use to the existing park, because the park has 30,000 acres of developable industrial which could take decades and decades to develop, but there is no counterbalance to it of any type of offices, retail or residential that is adjacent to it. And in good planning practices, when you have something that generates a lot of jobs, you want to balance as close to it as you can those services that those people that have those jobs need.  And that would be office, retail and residential.

And so our request before the board here and has been for several months is going through this process of saying the master plan states that --  And again, the master plan was approved before the zoning on it, so we're going all the way back to the master plan which was approved in 1994.  We're saying that the uses of the property today are higher and better and more balancing for the county than having 110,000 acres of industrial.  We think that 102 that's approved plus 8,000 acres of mixed use is better for the county.  And that's what our request is here.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That wasn't your question.

MR. JENSEN:  Well, in closing, I think I can get around to what we're talking about.  I'm a baseball fan, grew up in San Francisco.  I picked up a book the other day about when the San Francisco Giants moved out in 1957 to San Francisco.  They moved into Seals Stadium.  A man by the name of Harding bought Candlestick Cove.  Anybody ever been out there?  Ain't nothing out there.  He bought it for about 1.5 million. He got it zone changed.  And, of course, he was a good friend of Mayor Christopher at the time, and he ended up selling it for about eight million dollars.

All I'm saying is there's something very beneficial to be had here.  Do we have a guarantee, would your investors put down in writing that you would stay with this program for 20, 30 years, not turn around, get it changed in the master plan and then sell it because it will be worth more when the zoning is changed, if that's what happens?  Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR. SMITH:  Yeah.  Well, it's not so much --

MR. JENSEN:  It's a little nefarious, but that's how it is.

MR. SMITH:  Our intent is to develop the property out.  Anything that is approved here goes with the


property, it stays with the property forever.  And whether I live one year or 50 years, I can't give you that promise, but our intent from our company is to develop this property out with the current zoning.

MR. JENSEN:  And perhaps sell it three years down the line or five years down the line or who knows?

MR. SMITH:  Who knows, but that's not our intent. That's what I can express to you.

MR. JENSEN:  All right.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.  Gentlemen, thank you, both of you.

Next testimony here is from Sue Eckert who lives at 2125 Maple Leaf Trail, Somersett.  Ma'am.

MS. ECKERT:  I'm back here.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Step right up, please.

MS. ECKERT:  Yeah.  You know, based on the fact that we've got toxic rays and we have bombs and bad water, it's amazing we even want to live here to begin with.  But I have to be very, very careful, because obviously this is an extremely litigious group.  You could see everybody who's said anything being sued.

I've already gotten a fax saying that if --  I have a bad house, I have a real bad house.  I have to preface this by saying everything that's wrong with my house is not the developer's fault, 50 percent of the


problem with my house is the developer's fault.  The rest is the builder's fault who was brought in by the developer and not thoroughly checked, I don't know. This is a builder who is on his third contractor's license.  Because every time --  I found out a lot building this home.  And I've built a lot of homes. I'm an investor as well.  Mr. Smith is an investor.

Nobody goes out of their way to put money on the line unless they're going to make money.  But there's a difference between when you make money and when you do the right thing.  And I'm not saying that they didn't. Believe me, I'm not passing any judgment, I'm going to tell you my specific story and where I'm at.

I bought the house, I closed on it July 2005.  In my walk-through papers, there were --  I have common area behind my home.  Now, my home has many more problems than this, which have nothing to do with the developer.

The common area behind my home, in my punch list I said, you got water coming down from the trees and it's July.  What's going to happen when the real water comes?  And we're pretty high up in Somersett.  I'm living the Somersett dream up there at whatever, 5,000 feet.  We're going to get water, we're going to get snow.  My punch list has it.


Now, again, I don't have any of my paperwork, because it's with my attorneys, because I'm going through two years of litigation on a home I can't sell. I can't get rid of it.  I want out of it.  I can't, because I've got a home that has drainage problems.  So if you guys need water, I could probably supply you some.

Nonetheless, on my punch list I said I had drainage problems.  In the fall of that 2005 the development company got e-mails from my builder saying:  We've got drainage problems behind these homes.  What are you going to do?  Now, to my builder's credit, he gave those to me.  I'm sure his counsel is not thrilled with that, but he did give those to me.

So they knew -- we knew we had problems behind my home.  I'm speaking specifically of me, nobody else, my issues.  In January when we had the water, I had 18 feet of mud slide down my hill, (inaudible) my pavers in my backyard, nine inches deep, 18 feet of brick.  They all looked at me like, okay, dumb little blonde girl, maybe you're not as dumb as you look. Okay.  I said, "Okay, fine, whatever, you know, just fix it."

January, February, March, April.  My house is -- it's very clear my house is a disaster.  I want out of


this house.  I want to sell this house.  I can't because I can't get anybody to come clean up their mud from my backyard which has now killed the entire backyard.

Lastly, so we bring in the development, the builder.  I've got attorneys and contractual obligations and contractors and Contractors' Board more than anybody has ever known.  The bottom line was it took me ten grand, nine months to get the mud out of my backyard.

What the development company--  They were present, they suggest this is a problem, but guess what, that mud is on your yard now, talk to the builder.  About three weeks ago when I had the recorded conversation with Michele Attaway saying, "We just went and looked at your -- at the common area and, yes, you've got water."

I have a house I can't sell.  Now the market has changed.  I've got a damaged home.  And I'm sitting there with a huge loss.  That's my personal story.

The only thing that I want to say in closing on this is maybe we need homes, maybe we don't need homes. I'm not saying these guys are good or bad, my only point is I think whatever happens in this county --  It was my intent to maybe build up here.  I called


Phyliss.  I want to sell, I want out.  I'm trying to keep my emotions out of this.  This is more than any single person should have to go through for a house that was not cheap.  And I just want out and I can't. I'm stuck.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you for that point, ma'am.

MS. ECKERT:  So it's just cross your Ts, dot your I's, do all your checking.  Whoever comes in and builds in this county, check them out, look at their other developments.  If they're happy, great; if they're not --  I'm not saying Mr. Blake --  There's tons of happy people in Somersett.  Okay.  I'm not saying anything but my personal thing.  I don't want to get another letter from another attorney, because if I do -- Was I really all that unfair and unbalanced?  I told my specific story.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, ma'am, for your input.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Would you agree, Mr. Smith, this is not the forum to respond?

MR. SMITH:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  But we encourage --

Mike Hynick.

MR. HYNICK:  Hynick.



MR. HYNICK:  Mike Hynick, 240 Elizabeth Lane.  And my questions were addressed by Ms. Hammack and Mr. Osborne.


MR. HYNICK:  Sorry.  Do you want me to start over?

Mike Hynick, 240 Elizabeth Lane, and my questions were addressed by Planning Commissioners Hammack and Osborne, but I just wanted to agree with them saying that we did look at the master plan, we looked at the zoning.  I moved from Las Vegas, an area that everybody might remember, PEPCON, which was something in the same, the development changes down there where they put houses real close to a rocket fuel factory and there was an explosion, people died, damage to property.

So I don't think that their proposed mixed use does mix with the existing zoning, so I would like the commission to, you know, uphold the existing zoning.  I think the decision was made 15 years ago, the vision was right what we wanted.  I think the people here and the county also believe in the vision.  And that's all I would like to say.  Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  I don't know what I'm


looking at.  Kathy, is it P or M?  Is it Bigby?

MS. BIGBY:  Bigby.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Ma'am.  Territory Road?

MS. BIGBY:  Yes.


MS. BIGBY:  I just have a couple of comments to these gentlemen over here.  Who are you to insult our intelligence telling us that we're not 21st century, we want this and we want that?  Who are you to impose what your wants and needs are on us?  We live up here for a reason.  We go through certain inconveniences for a reason, because this is what we want.  We don't want your development and you can go bye-bye.  Your deep pockets are not welcome here.  We like our land.

Who do you think you are?  We're 21st century.  We have computers, we have cell phones, we have, you know, the DSL.  We don't need the homes.  You going to try to make us into Vegas?  We already have water problems. What gives you the right to take from our wells?  We don't have water.  Get it through.  Didn't you learn from Vegas?  Don't make us your mistake as well.  And I'm being very polite right now, very polite.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Raymond McPartlin.

MR. McPARTLIN:  Yeah, I think you can hear me


without --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Sure can.  Thank you, sir.

MR. McPARTLIN:  -- without the microphone.  There's a couple of -- half a dozen things here.  I'll try and be quick and concise to address the sales job that Cordevista has given us in their three prior presentations.

One, Mr. Smith has repeatedly said the county needs balance and Cordevista is intended for the workers of TRI.  Well, you just heard what TRI had to say about it.  It's nonsense.  TRI workers are 90 percent hourly employees who can in no way, shape or form afford the planned housing that's being proposed for Cordevista unless they're going to put in all doublewide trailers.

They've promised to provide Lockwood with flood control.  Unless there's been a (inaudible) of the laws of nature, that isn't going to happen.  They're empty promises.  The Army Corps of Engineers said they can't stop the flooding.  Cordevista says they can.  Flooding cannot be control.  Development will always increase flood potential as available soil is covered.  Their own engineers said that only 16 percent of the flood water comes through Cordevista land.  This can no way, shape or form stop the flooding at Rainbow Bend.

They also indicated they're going to provide


schools for Lockwood children.  I thought it was the school board that decides where our kids go to school, not developers.  The school board decides where they go.  The schools will not be available -- will already be available at Painted Rock long before Cordevista has any input into it.

They've also indicated that they will make water available to the Virginia City Highlands people.  They don't have water rights, they don't know how much they're going to get, but, by God, they're going to make it available for those of us that live up there.

These pledges have absolutely no validity and are empty promises of a chicken in every pot, a desperate attempt to influence Storey County voters to back this scheme.  Mr. Smith emphasizes that if his rezoning of the master plan modification is not approved the county will end up with additional industrial development, he just said so.

Cordevista in no way will be able to compete with TRI as far as industrial development.  TRI already has the infrastructure in place and the capacity to expand for the next 10 to 15 years.

In a related issue -- in a related issue, the bill Senator Mark Amodei proposed the -- pushed through the 2007 legislature for the state at the 13th hour formed


a regional water board for northern Nevada.  The attempt was put back.  What he wanted to do was have a bill which would allow a water authority to be able to acquire water, sell it, incur debt and set rates. Fortunately that was not what got put through, but I can guarantee you it will be pushed again next time.

Cordevista needs water.  Theoretically this bill as originally proposed would have allowed the water authority to incur debt to run water from Washoe to Cordevista and set rates for the homeowners to pay off the cost of the required water infrastructure, thereby eliminating virtually all costs to the developer. Senator Amodei is the lawyer for Cordevista.

Finally, what got proposed today is you don't need a modification to the master plan.  Well, if they believe a modification is not needed to the master plan, they should pull the application for it.  They're setting this whole thing up already for litigation. They're on both sides of the issue, we don't need to apply for this, but we're going to apply for it anyhow. You know, they're setting up the board by saying there's undue influence.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  That's what we're hearing.

MR. McPARTLIN:  That's why we're here is right.  If this issue that's come up today is the first time, I


don't think the planning commission can make any decision on the modification to the master plan because they haven't had time to look into this issue that was raised by Cordevista.  They're playing games.  Thank you.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Speaking of schools, Henry Kilmer.  Henry, where are you?

MR. KILMER:  Right here.  I'll be brief, although I could talk all night.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  What's it going to be, Henry?

MR. KILMER:  Brief.


MR. KILMER:  Two issues.  One, I would like to know who built the schools in Somersett.  I think I have a good idea.  Did the people in Washoe County build them or did the people in Somersett build those schools?  I think that's a question we need to answer.

Now, I think everybody here knows that the cost of maintaining schools, paying teacher salaries and such, that's a state issue, not a local issue.  But the original construction of schools, there's only two ways to construct schools.  One is you pass a bond.  Who pays for the bond?  The entire county pays for the bond.  Or you put some kind of impact fee on people.


That's the only two ways I know of.  And the impact fee to build schools in Somersett is going to be at least 10 to $12,000 per lot.  And I don't think the Somersett people -- I'm sorry, I don't think the developer wants to do that.  That means we're going to pay for the schools when they're constructed.

Now, there's a big difference between -- also between Washoe County and Somersett and Storey County and Cordevista.  Here's the difference.  Washoe County has all those people to absorb cost.  What do we got, 4,000 people to absorb cost, or 8,000.  There's a big difference, believe me, from here and Washoe County and -- I'm sorry, Storey County and Washoe County.

The other thing I wanted to ask --  That's one question:  Who is going to build those schools and where is the money coming from?

The second question deals with an issue I just heard the other day; and I don't know the answer to this.  I understand there may have been some soil testing going on out there.  I know TRW was somewhere in that area.  I think most of you know what happened out here when we tried to build a football field.  It took six years to get approval.  You know why, because of a few contaminants from miners.  I can't imagine what it would cost to -- what the issues would be to


build a school on some of the contaminants that could be in that area down there.  I'd sure like to know what --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, that has been addressed.

MR. KILMER:  It has been?


MR. KILMER:  And what --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Contaminants are minimal according to the survey that was done on that property.

MR. KILMER:  If that's the answer, that's good. Okay.  Thank you.




MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman.


MR. SMITH:  Do you want me to address any of these?


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, the man certainly has a right to, but I think that most of those issues that were specific have already been addressed by you, sir.

MR. SMITH:  Well, the purpose --  You originally asked if this was the presentation.  If I can just address the audience for a second.  We have --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Stay here, Jed.


MR. SMITH:  These applications were applied for four or five months ago, somewhere in that timeframe, but in that timeframe we have had three town hall meetings and this is the fourth planning commission meeting of which in all of those meetings before --  We abbreviated tonight's because not to be redundant.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Appreciate that.

MR. SMITH:  And so the purpose was for -- to have the planning commission hear the discussion or the summary of what has happened over seven previous -- or six previous meetings, this being the seventh one.  So some of these questions and comments that have been said have been answered, I believe, in detail in the previous.  If the board would enjoy or would like, we can readdress them.  It's just we have addressed them in the past to summarize it.  So we are here to answer them if there's any question.


MEMBER HAMMACK:  That's what the binder is.

MR. SMITH:  Yeah, that's what the binder is is the past --


MR. SMITH:  -- seven long meetings.


MR. MARGOLIN:  My name is Jed Margolin.  I live in


the Virginia City Highlands.  I've been to most of the other meetings, and I thought this one would be just like it, and I'm not quite sure what to make of what happened here tonight.  It sounds like Blake Smith's attorneys are just building a record for the future litigation that they've promised.

And so the other questions that I was going to ask  come down to --  I notice that we have a court reporter here.  Will a transcript for this meeting be available sometime soon?



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I think the turnaround time has been about two weeks, sir?  Yes.  It's been about two weeks, the turnaround time.

MR. MARGOLIN:  Could I get it in a form that I could easily convert to text as opposed to the other ones?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I don't know.  That would have to be --

MR. MARGOLIN:  Okay.  And the other thing is I'm looking at these really thick binders.  I wonder if you have maybe an extra one that I could have?  I already know --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I don't know if anyone is


willing to give up such a (inaudible) document.

MR. MARGOLIN:  Well, no, but from the letters that have already been -- from the letters -- from the letters that have already been read here, I know there's some documents in there that I really want to read for myself and post.



MS. GIBONEY:  If you would like to see the binder, you may come up to the building and planning department, we have one there.  Anybody is welcome to come up and see it.  If you wish copies of any of the pages, we will do that, and there is a cost of a dollar a page.


MR. MARGOLIN:  I know, I can't afford that.  I want everything.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  Could we loan a copy to him?

MR. MARGOLIN:  There are large parts of it that I want to scan and put up on the website unless the county wants to promise to put it on its website.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Is that at all practical?

MR. WHITTEN:  Mr. Margolin knows that probably I am the only county resource right now dedicated internally to the website, and that would be virtually impossible


for the county, as I think he knows.  We don't have the space, the staff or anything.

MR. MARGOLIN:  All right.  Well --


MR. WHITTEN:  I believe at least one of our planning commissioners is willing to --

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  I'm willing to loan a copy. I have mine in my car.  My back would not allow me to carry it.  But I have my copy in my vehicle, and I'm willing to loan it to you, but I do want it back.

MR. MARGOLIN:  Okay.  That's great.  I promise to return it in the same condition that I receive it.

MR. WHITTEN:  And I would like to thank Mr. Margolin for his help in keeping that information out there, but we are having a difficult time keeping up with it.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.



MR. HOUTS:  Houts.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Help me again.  Once again, sir.

MR. HOUTS:  Houts.


MR. HOUTS:  H-o-u-t-s.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.


MR. HOUTS:  Do I need to lean down or can people hear me?


MR. HOUTS:  Oh, good.  This is my first meeting on --  I'm a resident of the Mark Twain area and part of the Mark Twain Community Group.  I think probably everybody knows that by now.  And this is my first meeting of Cordevista.  And I've asked the county for some documents which I haven't been able to get yet. And I understand there's time constraints, I understand everybody is busy, but I would like to get the application for Cordevista.

And I would suggest that instead of the county having to loan out its own copies that perhaps the developer would supply additional copies so that there could be four or five additional copies that people could sign out at the county if they want to examine them.  And if they want to put a deposit down, $50 or something, they have a week or so to examine the document and they can return it.

MR. SMITH:  We would be happy to.

MR. HOUTS:  That's just a suggestion, because there is a lot of information there, you know, that the rest of us haven't seen and we would like to see it.



MR. SMITH:  We would be happy to.  Give us a day or two obviously to copy it and we'll get it up to Dean's office.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, the initial applications?

MR. SMITH:  Well, those are inside the binder.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, I understand that.  Okay.

MR. HOUTS:  Because it's difficult for citizens to advise the planning commission or the commissioners if they don't really have all the information.


MR. HOUTS:  And those documents would help us.

I've seen homes like this before.  I've seen developments like this in Ohio, in Illinois and Indiana, lots of places where there's lots of rain. And, you know, I see a lot of green things here in this picture.  And, you know, I mean, everybody knows about the water problems, we're all concerned about that, but the other thing we're concerned about is none of us moved here because we wanted to be --  I don't want to live in Reno.  I don't know why the Mayor of Reno said it's a good idea, but if he wants it, he can have it. When I go to Reno, I don't like the traffic.  I didn't move into Storey County because I want to live in Reno or Vegas or LA, and I don't want it to be that way ten years from now.


What I want is I want the planning commission and the commissioners to come and make decisions that will control and implement reasonable regional growth in the county so that the county can grow but the county has time to respond and add the services like fire, EMS, understand what water requirements are, in a gradual basis.  And I think what they said before about this being such a large project --  I mean, this is a massive project.  Fifteen thousand homes, that's a lot of homes.  And maybe they are being treated a little special, but it is a giant project and it requires a lot of consideration.  Thank you.




MR. WILLIAMS:  Yes, I don't think I need a microphone.  It's been interesting as I listened to the comments back and forth.  Having been involved with some of this in my past life, I would like to ask a question.  And it is a question.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Certainly, sir.  Go right ahead.

MR. WILLIAMS:  I think there is a lot of back and forth about is this condition met or is that condition met, who provided the information.  Has there been an environmental impact study which includes water, roads,


power?  If not, then I certainly think it should be done.  And it's not done by the applicant, it's solicited by the applicant and done by another party. That's all I have to say.  Thank you.




MS. SMITH:  Everybody here has just about covered everything I wanted to say except one thing is a little fuzzy.  When they removed --  I'm on Territory Road. When they removed our horses we were --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, ma'am.

MS. SMITH:  -- told that there was a sanctuary.  And it was our impression it was somewhere around where this Cordevista is.  Am I wrong in thinking that, or was somebody just cramming something down our throat?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, there were plans for that.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Mr. Smith, could you --

MR. SMITH:  I had heard of a sanctuary.  When we were acquiring this property, the sanctuary comment came up.  I know there's been several groups that have --  I'm unaware of a sanctuary.  I know that there's been several groups that have tried to create a sanctuary, and at times they've said our property is


the sanctuary, but I am unaware, unless, Dean, you can help me or somewhere, I'm unaware of any sanctuary in the county by any legal means or other things.

MR. HAYMORE:  No.  There's quite a few different organizations that have gone out to the prior owners and asked for their support, even TRW, even TRI, and asked for their support to try to organize their sanctuary, even right up here off of the bottom of Six Mile Canyon, but there was never on the private lands anything set aside.  Some previous owners had provided water out there for the horses to come.  And where you have water, the horses will come.  And so the previous operator did keep a pond full which drew the horses up there on that property that you're talking about, but there was no official sanctuary put together.

Probably the Highlands has probably the most organized horse group to help and protect and enhance the horses.  And those have gone through different presidents and everything else.  But there hasn't been a sanctuary set out, defined and stated.

MS. SMITH:  Okay.  So basically the previous owner that we thought handled this sold his property to somebody who sold his property to these people to develop it for homes and other things.  So basically this is just another stage before you guys do something


else with this.  Not you, these guys.


MR. HAYMORE:  And I can't answer if they sold (inaudible) whatever, they sold their property and liquidated their property.  They decided not to operate it, so they liquidated their property.  And Mr. Smith is the one that bought it.  There were others interested in buying it that came and talked to me about opening up the industrial or rocket fuel and different things, but nobody came through until Mr. Smith contacted me and said he is the purchaser of the property.

And the first time I rode up with Mr. Smith, I told him, "No way are we going to put houses up there, because that's not what the county master plan says."

And he kept on saying, "Well, this is my plan."

He's just like you.  If I want to go out and build something on my property, I'd have that right, and that's what he's trying to do is go through the political process by -- and the law process to ask to change at this time.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, ma'am.

MR. HAYMORE:  And let me clarify.  I cannot tell Mr. Smith what he can do with his property as you can't.  All's I can do is enforce the ordinances that


are here in Storey County.  And that's all I can do.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  And that's all we've ever done.



Okay.  Joe, before I foul up your last name, Joe from Resource Concepts.

MR. CACIOPPO:  Back here.  I only filled out the form in case I was asked to respond to questions.  I have no comments personally.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Thank you.  Help me with your last name.

MR. CACIOPPO:  Cacioppo.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Thank you.

MR. CACIOPPO:  You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I see Ireland is represented.

Denise deRenzy.

MS. deRENZY:  Yes.  I had to sit on the floor because I rode a bus for an hour to get up here.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Appreciate your effort, really.

MS. deRENZY:  Yeah, I have a couple of questions. One is we heard that 20 percent of the runoff in Lockwood was going to be held back by the new development.  Who is responsible for that other 80 percent of runoff that comes through Lockwood and floods us?  Is there anybody who's done a study or



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, I think it was down to, what, 19 percent actually goes through.  Where's the other gentleman that brought up that figure?

MR. CACIOPPO:  It's approximately 18 percent that would contribute from the Cordevista project.

MS. deRENZY:  Yeah, so where does the other 80 percent come from?

MR. CACIOPPO:  Well, the entire -- Cordevista is part of the entire contributing watershed. Specifically I don't know who all the land owners are, but it would come from the rest of the watershed.

MS. deRENZY:  The watershed from the firehouse down?

MR. CACIOPPO:  Up the hill.

MS. deRENZY:  Up the hill, which means the Highlands, right?  Am I mistaken?


MS. deRENZY:  And beyond.  Aren't retention ponds state law?  Do we have a lawyer?  I would like --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  We have a legal --

MR. GUNDERSON:  We've got lots of lawyers.

MS. deRENZY:  Isn't it state law that to prevent runoff to flooding an area the responsible party is supposed to have retention ponds?


MR. GUNDERSON:  The developer is required to handle, manage and address runoff.  How they do that is up to them and their engineers and the approval process.  It may include detention ponds or it may not. It depends on how they decide they want to manage the water.

MS. deRENZY:  So whoever owns the property above for the runoff is responsible for taking care of preventing floods?

MR. GUNDERSON:  That's correct.

MS. deRENZY:  Okay.  So that means like the Highlands homeowners association is responsible for preventing floods in Lockwood?

MR. GUNDERSON:  Well, I can't address that.


MR. GUNDERSON:  That's getting too technical for me.  If you have water on your property, you've got to take responsible steps to corral it and to manage it.

MS. deRENZY:  Well, I just --  You know, we have a lot of water that runs through Lockwood every time it rains from the firehouse down, and I just wanted to know who was responsible.  And I know like state law prevents -- you know, what did he say, that everybody expected a reasonable safe home.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mr. Chairman, point of



MR. GUNDERSON:  In general, but I can't really address specifically what you're asking.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We're not here this evening to discuss flooding in Lockwood.  That's not on the agenda.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  That's a fact.  But thank you for your concerns.  I think you have been sufficiently answered by our legal counsel.

MS. deRENZY:  Okay.  Thank you.  The other thing is that special industrial includes explosives?


MS. deRENZY:  Okay.  I'm definitely against --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  To all different degrees.

MS. deRENZY:  Different degrees of explosives from like little explosives to big explosives?

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Well, the projects that you're speaking of, the last project was a small device to explode air bags in cars.  And any larger projects never were finished to produce --

MS. deRENZY:  I'm definitely against explosives in Lockwood or anywhere near Lockwood.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Appreciate that.

MS. deRENZY:  Thank you.





COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  Mr. Chairman, should we read something from the special industrial zone required criteria for permitted use?  It says --  Number C. Excuse me.  I'll back up.  17.38.040, required criteria for permitted use.  This is reading from the special industrial zone.  "The boundaries of the property shall--"

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  I (inaudible) you should read it.

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  You want me to?  Okay.  "The boundaries of the property shall not be located closer than one mile to property which permits a residential use, except for those boundaries permitting a residential use at the time of the passage of this zoning ordinance.

"The boundaries of the property --"  This is number D.  "The boundaries of the property shall not be closer than two miles from a permitted city or town."

So that pretty much limits how much area there can be explosives in.

MS. deRENZY:  Well, I had my windows broken by an explosion at Mustang that one year.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  What happened at Mustang?


MS. deRENZY:  I've lived in Lockwood since 1979 and we had an explosion there.  There was an explosion and two Mexicans were killed.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Correct.  That was in Washoe County.  That was across the river.  Yeah, that was a biggie.

MS. deRENZY:  Yeah, that was a biggie.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Thank you.

David Laney.

MR. LANEY:  Hello.  Both my questions have been answered, but two quick questions for Blake Smith. One, have you not listened to the people of Storey County; and, two, don't you think it's time to pull the plug on Cordevista?


MR. LANEY:  That's my only question.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay, folks, that is the end of the testimony declarations.  Is there someone who would like to speak that did in fact not fill out a declaration?

Gentlemen over here from my left.  Sir.

MR. MASSICOTT (phonetic):  Yeah, my name is Steven Massicott.  I live down on Wagon Wheel Way in Mark Twain.  There was a statement made earlier here that kind of went right past everybody and it just -- it


absolutely floored me.

Question to any of the commissioners or anybody over here.  What is the average growth rate of a county on a national basis in a percentage point?  Is it one percent, two percent, three percent?  Is there anybody here that can answer that on a national basis, even on a --  Take Vegas out of the equation.  What is the average growth rate per county in the state?

They made a statement, I forget who said it, that this proposal is going to grow Storey County by 12 fold.  What is the timeline for this plan?  Is it five years, six years, seven years?  What is the --  From start to finish, bulldozers are gone, how long is the timeline for this project?  Does anybody know?

MR. SMITH:  I can tell you a couple of things that  I know.  I am not a demographic -- demographer I believe it's pronounced, but Reno-Sparks has grown over the past 15 years compounded at 2.8 percent per year. Storey County has grown at 4.9 percent per year. Las Vegas, the one that everyone looks to, I believe is still growing at about 9 percent per year.  Outside of Nevada I couldn't tell you the population of the country growth --

MR. MASSICOTT:  And now we have to take those growth curves, we have to average them out over the


population, because nine percent of 4,000 is a whole lot different than 2.3 percent of a quarter million dollars down at the bottom of the hill -- a quarter million people at the bottom of the hill.  So it's all relative.

I ask you, what is your timeline, if they gave you permission today, five years, ten years, how fast can you do this project?

MR. SMITH:  And I think we've stated that in the past, that this project would be envisioned to go 30 to 50 years to build it out.

MR. MASSICOTT:  To build all 15,000 houses?

MR. SMITH:  Um-hum, yes.  It's a very long-term project, just like TRI is.  There's an unknown timeframe in that as to how long it would take to build it out.  This one would be an unknown also, but it could very easily take that long to build out this project.

MR. MASSICOTT:  Do you have --  You're just estimating, you have not on your finances, your banking or anything said it will be so many houses per year --


MR. MASSICOTT:  -- to pay your note off?  You don't really care how long it takes you?  So if they approve it based on a hundred houses a year, you would wait 400


years to do the whole thing?

You have to have a building timeline.  You can't go to this commission and say 30 years, 40 years, anything could happen.  You know and I know, building contractors, they have phases and those phases have timelines.  And I think they should know give or take a reasonable average what that timeline will be, because we can't afford --  There isn't a county in this state that can take a 12-fold growth even over a 20-year program, because we're not going to be able to afford it.  It will cause more mayhem in this county that I can even imagine; and I'm not that smart a guy.



MR. SMITH:  And, again, in the previous presentations we've shown where this is step one of the process which is the master plan and the zone change. The next step where we would request a PUD or a development plan, that would -- then we would go in and actually define how many homes are at that point and we could do an economic model.  We're not at that stage yet, but it would be part of the second stage of the process here that we would come in and show the economics, show the taxes and how it all works.

What we've pledged is that it would be a net


positive to Storey County, the tax base that came in through the project, but that couldn't be determined until we got to the next stage.

MR. MASSICOTT:  So you're saying that you expect these guys to vote for a special use permit without knowing all that information?

MR. SMITH:  No, this is not a special use permit, this is a master plan and a zone change.

MR. MASSICOTT:  Somehow you're going to have to get permits to do this project.

MR. SMITH:  Yes, and the second --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  It might or might not come later.

MR. SMITH:  Yeah, but the second step of that --

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  But we will need that, yes.

MR. SMITH:  The second step of that would be us delivering all that and then they would approve it at that point or decline it.  There is a second step that goes beyond this.  And there's actually a third step, that it comes before the public in the process and there's either an acceptance or a denial at that point. So approving this allows us to go to the next step which would have another process similar to this going on that has an acceptance or a denial process.

MR. MASSICOTT:  I just find it hard to believe that


common sense with such a large project and ungodly impact on the community, in your opinion good, and in everybody's opinion bad, that there's not an estimated timeline, you're not giving them, hey, 25 percent in the first three years, 35 percent over the next four. There's no timeline.

MR. SMITH:  No, it is in there.  We've stated it clearly that we could see it from a 20- to 50-year horizon, but it's market driven.  The problem is --

MR. MASSICOTT:  It's in the big book?

MR. SMITH:  Yes.

MR. MASSICOTT:  The timeline.  I'm going to suggest to you that --  I know you guys didn't do that on a typewriter, that's a digital document.  You should be able to supply that to the county, they can put it up on the website.  I know a guy who can put it up on the website probably for free.  It can't be more than 15 to 20 megabytes.  That thing could be put on line for all of us to see, very little trouble.  It's better than you trying to supply 10 or 20 copies.

MR. SMITH:  It is not all scanned in.  I wish it all was, but it's actually a copying process.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, gentlemen.


MR. VAN DAM:  I'm Alex Van Dam from Virginia City.


I would like to add a little bit to it, because I can look a little bit in the future.  We've been talking about what could happen to Storey County in the future. I happened to live 30 years of my life in Europe in a country where it was the trend to fill up every little spot with houses and factories.

I left there because of the acid rain, the traffic that was horrendous at every hour of the day wherever you wanted to go, work, school, whatever.  It was a hell to live there.  And, I'm sorry, I'm a little emotional about this.


MR. VAN DAM:  Since then I've traveled the world, I've seen a lot of places in this world, and I was lucky enough and privileged enough to end up in Storey County, because I thought it was a treasure.  And I've seen a lot of places, and this is a treasure, this is a paradise.

And if I tell my family in Europe that I can walk    on rocky cliffs and there's hundreds of ancient drawings, petroglyphs, at the same time I can look at 12 horses running by, they don't even believe me until they saw it with their own eyes.  This is something very unique in the world what we have here.  And please don't fall in the mistake that the Europeans did,


filling up every spot until they have ten hours to drive.  If you go to places in Poland or Austria, there is still a little bit of open land there.  We still have some (inaudible), but it's a treasure, a whole treasure, that we have here.


MR. VAN DAM:  I have one more thing to say.  I've heard a lot of things said about what would be good for Storey County, and it usually comes from the people that don't live in Storey County.  Well-meaning politicians think of things that would be good for a certain population or what is good for Storey County.    Politicians are not always right.  Some well-meaning politicians thought Iraq was going to be good for us, and that's certainly not.

So, Mr. Amodei, I would like to tell you what we, the people in Storey County, would think would be good for Storey County.  These petroglyphs and the wild horses out there are so unique in this world that it should be at least a national heritage site or at least a state heritage site.  And there's ways to do that. There is ways to purchase the land from Blake Smith and declare the whole area a state heritage site.  There is ways to do that.  Bill Clinton can tell you how to do that.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Another politician.

MR. VAN DAM:  But that is what Storey County would love you to do.  Then we would be proud of our senator. Don't fill up -- don't fill up our open space that we treasure with economical things that make sense, but it would make us very unhappy.  Talk to the people in Dayton and ask how happy they are with what has been going on there.  That's all I want to say.



MR. WINTERS:  My name is Ernie Winters.  I live in the Highlands.  I'm also a member of the Nevada Rock Art Foundation.  The director of the Nevada Rock Art Foundation today died.  Everybody knows Alanah.  And I'm very sorry to bring you that sad information.  But, as you know, the foundation has been working at the petroglyphs for the last three years documenting every petroglyph that's there.

I'm not coming as a representative of the foundation.  I'm just a member.  But my point is if there's 15,000 houses in that immediate vicinity, how many 20-year-old boys with spray cans are there going to be in those 15,000 houses?  And when you say that those are going to be protected, I don't believe it. You can't make me believe it, that those will be


protected, just the same as those petroglyphs up there in north Reno were protected.


MR. WINTERS:  On Peavine.  You can't protect them. In Alanah's memory I just had to stand up and say
please, please, please do not approve this project.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.



MR. GILBERT:  Yeah, Mr. Commissioner and Planning Commission, my name is Ed Gilbert and I'm from the River District.  And I hope I don't get lynched by the time I get out of this building tonight, but I'm going to speak for this project.  Even though Mr. Gilman says he does not need this project for his population or for his employees within his industrial park, that's where they're going to come from.  Other than that, they're going to come from Washoe County, Reno-Sparks.

Interstate 80 right now is a zoo, trying to get on that thing at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, trying to come out here at 4:30 in the night.  Yes, Mr. Gilman does not need it, but it's going to help.

Also, it was brought up about the flooding. Anything that Mr. Smith can do for the flooding along Lagomarsino Canyon will be an assistance to us.  And


whatever he's going to do is going to help us.  I believe his figure was, what, 18 percent he was going to reduce it, something like that.  Anything is going to be a help.

Also, as far as the school districts, the northern district is going to grow of Storey County.  Are we going to continue to bus our kids up to Virginia City day in and day out?  Again, he has offered to build the infrastructure, not the county, but he is going to build it according to county specifications I'm sure. And I'm sure that all these requirements are going to be in writing on his permit.  So that's all I got to say about it.  Thank you for hearing me out.



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  This gentleman in the back there.

MR. MAYS:  My name is Bud Mays.  I live in Rainbow Bend and Lockwood.  I heard Mr. Smith say this evening that this was the seventh time that he has appeared and been put under the microscope, dissected and trisected about all the different aspects of this project; and you're still sputtering.  I think common decency dictates that you give him an answer.  I'm not telling you how to vote.  I don't really care how you vote.


But I think you ought to do something other than say we'll table this until our next meeting.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  This, sir--  This has been a continuation of a process that gave the citizens of this county in different districts a chance to voice their opinion on their home turf.  This is the meeting.

And, Planning Commissioners, at this juncture I think the chair is looking for a motion on the master plan amendment.



COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Before we do that, there's one other item I feel that we need to address.  We've asked county staff to provide us information regarding impacts to their various departments.  We have received that report.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Yes, we have.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I'm hoping Mr. Smith has also received the report.

MR. SMITH:  Yes.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  And my question --  I would like to hear from Mr. Smith if he has any comments or concerns regarding anything that came out of the reports from the county.



MR. MOLLATH:  Go ahead.  I think they need to hear from you.

MR. SMITH:  That's fine.  Yes, we did receive it, and we did review the impacts report as it was presented.  We actually believe those impacts and understand those and do see those costs and those infrastructure items as things that will come.  We see those that will come, whether it's under a mixed use or under an industrial, but those will be coming.  And we do agree that it's -- those impacts will come to the county under either business model.

And so we really don't have a discrepancy with it. I mean, there's some fine-tuning things, but at this level we agree with what's said in there, that it would be -- under either one of these zoning proposals you'll have those same type of occurrences within that.  So I don't know if I'm answering appropriately.

MR. MOLLATH:  And let me just add in that regard, certainly all those things are absolutely essential items to be addressed.  This level of the approval process is not the time where you address those particular issues.  Those issues are addressed as the project unfolds past the master plan amendment, past the zone change and you get into the specific design of the project.  They're all legitimate things that staff


has to look at, the county has to look at, and we agree they have to be looked at, but you don't look at that at the beginning, you look at that throughout the process and then you hone that process to adopt to and provide for all those concerns of staff.


Mr. Prater.

MR. SMITH:  You know, can I make one additional comment?


MR. SMITH:  Because there's been a lot of comments and different things in here.  This process --  And there's been a lot of comments towards myself or our organization or whatever.  We are by no means a litigious organization.  In fact, I have never been sued and I have never sued anyone.  That is not the reason why Mr. Mollath is here.

We have come through this process and it has been a very long and detailed and very orientated one.  There was special counsel actually introduced into this which with this process brought a lot of correspondence and a lot of questions and a lot of other things of why -- The reason I introduced Mr. Mollath into it was to question have we completed everything we need to do within here and this is a complete record here.


So I know there was a lot of questions, a lot of other things in here, but I want to really clear the air of who we are.  This is a process that we believe in.  We think it is better.  I think that there are -- you know, there's -- I can sense the emotions within here, but from a logical standpoint, this is something that we see that is beneficial and balancing to the county.  So I did want to mention that, too.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you, sir.

MR. HAYMORE:  Mr. Chairman, can I make a statement for the record?


MR. HAYMORE:  I shoot straight with everybody.  And I've been here 20, 21 years working for the taxpayers of Storey County.  And there is a document in there, and I want to clear it up.  I'm going on vacation next week.  I'm going to try to -- my wife is making me go on a boat so I can't answer the phone.  And there were some allegations that staff --  And I have never been threatened by county management or a commissioner about my job.

Now, I may feel that the pressure of this process has put a lot of pressure on me that I've felt.  And I've made numerous comments that I don't know if I'll be here eight more years before I retire or eight more


days, because the pressure --  And I take everything to heart.  I've given my soul to Storey County residents. I give my soul to Blake Smith.

The process is this, it's my job to go through the process, it's my job to enforce the decision.  But I want it clear, so, newspaper, the chat rooms and everybody, nobody has threatened my job.  I might feel that I had a lot of pressure on me and everything else and I might have relayed that to Mr. Smith that, you know, I feel I got all this pressure, but I want it clear that nobody has threatened my job.

I do my job.  The county commissioners stand behind me, management stands behind me, you guys have always stood behind me and you as residents have always stood behind me.  And I've always tried to give my all to everybody.  If it's bad or good or negative or positive, I try to serve the taxpayers of Storey County.  And I've given the better part of my life and my family to do that.  And I just want to clear that for the record so there's nothing else going on.

And, Blake, I apologize to you personally if I might have said that, if you felt that.  There was some discussions back and forth with me and Blake and then we were directed to send everything through legal counsel which has actually made my job easier, but I


just wanted to make that for public record.



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Dean, I want to thank you.

MR. MOLLATH:  Let me add one thing to that.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  And this audience thanks you for your service to Storey County for all these years.


MR. MOLLATH:  I've been acquainted with Dean since the Hi-Shear days, and I would echo that he's a great public servant and he's done a great job for this community.  We've been at odds many times, but he does a great job for this community and he's an asset; and I just wanted to put that on the record.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Appreciate it.

MR. SMITH:  And I would ditto that to the entire staff across the board.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Thank you.  The chair would like to get on with the process.  Ladies and gentlemen, the chair is looking for a motion on this master plan amendment, 2007-049.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUCCHIANERI:  I have a question. Dean, you have part of it forestry and part of is as industrial. What's the percentage of that?

MR. HAYMORE:  6800 acres or 11 sections was zoned


as special industrial.  That was the TRW/Hi-Shear/Aerojet property.  Mr. Smith then purchased 1800 acres, plus or minus, from Storey County Properties that abut and wrap around the TRW property.

Some of that, if you're familiar with it, as you drive in to TRW there's a big flat plateau.  That plateau, when we did the zoning and stuff, we looked at it and said that at some point would be perfect to tie into the (inaudible) industrial or the special industrial.  So 600, 800 acres of that was zoned heavy industrial.  The remainder of that is forestry.

And I don't have exactly the numbers.  I think counsel has asked me and we never set it down exactly. I think Blake had it down on one of his presentations of kind of what it was, but the majority of the 8600 acres, 6800 acres is special industrial, 6 to 800 or maybe a thousand, don't quote me, is heavy industrial and then the rest is forestry.



COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  Before a motion is made, I just want to make one point as far as the staff correspondence and what staff feels about the impacts this will have on Storey County.  I do believe it is pertinent at this time and not later on, because it


does say, the master plan, a further goal of this plan is derived essentially from the desire to preserve and improve the present quality of Storey County.  It goes on further to say other things.  And what staff has provided us are issues that would affect the present life of people here in Storey County.  So whatever the motion is, I just think that needs to be considered, the recommendations by staff.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  As it will be.  Thank you.

The chair is looking for a motion, folks.



COMMISSIONER PRATER:  First off, I would like to state that Mr. Smith's proposal is probably the most thorough and most thoroughly examined proposal that we're going to see perhaps -- I've ever seen and may see in the future.  I have no doubt that this project to be done correctly could be done by Mr. Smith and that he's obviously well qualified and obviously capable of doing this.  However, in my opinion it falls back to the basics of whether or not the development is really necessary and whether or not it's appropriate.

With regards to the necessity, as everyone is well aware, almost a year ago now, we did approve a similar type development at Painted Rock that will if it's seen


through as approved triple the county's population. Again, we have no timelines with that project either, so when that will occur, I don't know, but at this time we already have in place that mechanism for -- as far as increasing housing within the county --This is the argument -- balance, that sort of thing.

The other aspect to me is the appropriateness.  And I raised the question earlier on as to the proposed zoning aspect of spot zoning.  This development is currently zoned on three sides by an industrial park and on the fourth side to the west very low density residential, forestry, in fact, which also could have other kinds of uses.  In my opinion that is spot zoning.  The developers argue that this is transitional zoning.  I'm afraid that I don't see it that way. Therefore, because of that, I at this point will move to deny.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  We have a motion for denial.  Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  I'll second that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Any further discussion?

All in favor?

(Collective aye)



CHAIRMAN WALLING:  We have one abstention.  The chair at this time has the prerogative to vote, and I vote --


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  -- in favor of the motion.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  I'm sorry.  Are we going to call for a vote for no's?

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  You didn't call for no's.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Excuse me.  No?


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  We will pass on our approval to the county commissioners.  Thank you, everyone, for your attention to the matter.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation.

MR. MOLLATH:  A procedural issue.  That dispenses with the master plan, but we haven't gotten to the zone change, which is really the same issue, so I think you need to vote on that.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  The zone change --  Okay.  Planning Commissioners, I would like to--

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  Quiet.  We're not done.

COMMISSIONER PRATER:  Can we have a brief recess?  Could we have a brief recess?


(Multiple discussions held off the record.)

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Secretary, could we have a call of the roll on the vote, please.

MS. GIBONEY:  Virgil.


MR. HAYMORE:  Folks, we need this on the record.

MS. GIBONEY:  Lydia.


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  On the motion?


CHAIRMAN WALLING:  You voted yes on the motion?

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  I voted yes on the motion to deny.

MEMBER OSBORNE:  Is there a way we can do this to make sure it's perfectly clear?

COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  The motion is on the floor to deny, wasn't it?

MS. GIBONEY:  Okay.  The motion on the floor was to deny.



MS. GIBONEY:  If you tell me yes, that means you voted for the denial.  If you tell me no, that means that you're voting against the denial.  So I'm going to start with Virgil again.



MS. GIBONEY:  Lydia.


MS. GIBONEY:  Peter.


MS. GIBONEY:  Austin.

COMMISSIONER OSBORNE:  Yes, I'm voting for the denial.

MS. GIBONEY:  Larry.






MS. GIBONEY:  Okay.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Okay.  Thank you.


COMMISSIONER HAMMACK:  We're not done.  If they'll be quiet, we can finish.

CHAIRMAN WALLING:  Just as a matter of fact here, we're going to have to make a statement that the requested zone change will be only heard when and if the master plan amendment has been approved as requested.  So the master plan has -- plan amendment has been denied, so we will not be hearing at this time the


zone change.

Thank you, once again, everybody.  I would --  I've got the softest chair in this town and my butt hurts, guys.  Please, enjoy your evening.

(The proceedings were concluded at 8:37 p.m.)



   STATE OF NEVADA        )
                                          )   ss.

        I, LORI URMSTON, a Certified Court Reporter and
   Notary Public for the County of Washoe, State of
   Nevada, do hereby certify that on Thursday, the 19th
   day of July, 2007, at the Storey County Courthouse, 26
   South B Street, Virginia City, Nevada, I reported the
   Storey County Planning Commission meeting;

        That the foregoing transcript, consisting of
   pages 1 through 114, is a true and correct transcript of
   the stenographic notes of testimony taken by me in the
   above-captioned matter to the best of my knowledge, skill
   and ability.

        I further certify that I am not an attorney or
   counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or
   employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the
   action, nor financially interested in the action.

        DATED: At Reno, Nevada, this 6th day of
   August, 2007.

                               LORI URMSTON, CSR #51

Converted to html by Jed Margolin, citizen