Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7900 Application 5May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ■ Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, e ► cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 r —t1 �(��i moi. J�IZ LAI II a [ LF Ccs Q rL P2 -u o Qu n mood.,: `' s -n"��/0 F 0,Vn4E F, -,,-t, c r 16 + May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 M dl� &eL7 /I C, I C u�0Wlc/ -�Y-b n-, Zo 1 4,c-� May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high' EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorou h Rlanning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hu McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 �, � � in� e.-�D�.���- �- Iry � \e_-� ►�.� d�o�S i inY� J VS5 M1 D\.n`� fy-\O.\S C) ,-I- w- � �o�.r,r.�r` � M�-I.o�� n� � s�����Y � `oe, l�� i �. i-�� hcn� u•C�.1,1O� ���� �n1.S � �� � May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to -promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, AGE .3 cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 G � VVk i C&�L e + 11 til CX: 4 Lai (1) pro ���z May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields ■ A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I 'have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough Planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 2rOp05C s r (C� G�vl ci May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ■ Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the .sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, J,-- �`� y/Zs - cc: Mr. Hugh cDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry ■ Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, Irn• cc: Mr. Hugh Mca , President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Fj 7 May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward -oor planninn R- and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beautV that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement.- "To tatement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community' that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, P3 cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 711 eTYY% cz, ��. , May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the -rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10'h, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 4 _ I _` ti Y + _fyU ,, J I 1 + EXdI �! LG f-� 1 ��k S t CT(x r' Jvi W I W Cl o May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley ■ Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, ■ Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out—there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Wcn44Nc 4t %k. ICI +(f-C'.k J l�cncl �a c, roc Id L— k. ci leo )dA b cies. 7c,;,cC tk:� .ria-;ni5 ;a- �c.j FlecQ(eC, �,:ti'c� i•t ems. ^r1 r Do (.L, �n� N --d Fria. i'1J ,�c.,N C�^1L'e;.j o 1 f�.cfi �c_cl uje:lr e. -t ;J 0. 16L.,,,j Lr,,, Imd i,,,c .L Ji t -c 4 9, ! E cl 2/J r•_ r i- M e •I + ' h e ti..'e 4 c X CL6ie 44, fit (4�I c; �1Qz 2- a-n,�t Yz� CC,i }r d t ' 1e,#JC kife i't C:'•)Ir c!'4--L;.NG'., JT -P, J GJ 4:4 �t+c ✓ .l`a.1 e G,cl -Gin 1,� May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, ■ children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty -that makes this a "city in a park." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and,Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, _ '�-35 cc: McHugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 JLJ May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: Children board and ride their horses, children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an established residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough planning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement.- "To tatement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, 1X4x000e .36' cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, President and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 May 8, 2006 Little Rock Planning Commission Members & Little Rock City Board of Directors c/o 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioners and City Directors, I have been following with interest the events leading up to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday May 11 th regarding a Condition Use Permit filed by Entergy. I am shocked and disappointed that staff has recommended approval of this item with no mention of the opposition of several property owners in this valley and concerned citizens. This valley is within 4/10 of a mile of the city limits and staff's report is treating it as "undeveloped." This is a valley where some residents have lived in for over thirty years and others in recent years have purchased land and built their dream homes. This valley is filled with people of all ages and walks of life. The Colonel Glenn valley is host to a variety of activities that represent the fabric of the American life and dream. To name a few: • Children board and ride their horses, • children from the Arkansas school for the deaf have experienced their first ever hayride in this valley and this continues to be an annual event organized by a local deaf youth ministry • Nieces, nephews, cousins, grandchildren play in this valley • Family reunions and activities take place in well -kept open spaces/fields • A wedding reception was held here, under 80 year old walnut trees, • Family and friends barbeques are a common occurrence Introducing a sub power station to an, tablish residential area will ruin it aesthetically and economically. The presence of a sub power station will inhibit future residential development, lower property values of existing homes and properties and thus decrease tax revenues for the county and city and invite unnecessary and inappropriate commercial or industrial development. It only takes the introduction of one non -conforming use to invite others. Furthermore, I am concerned about the health and safety hazards the presence of the sub power station will pose to the residents in this area. The Colonel Glenn valley is frequently under a burn ban and a mishap with a sub power station would without question devastate surrounding homes with only a volunteer fire department to fight a fire that would sweep through this valley in a matter of minutes. Some of the land in this valley is in the flood plain and with the rain events such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, the presence of a large structure in the flood plain guarantee that at least four residences will be flooded. Who will compensate the residents for property damage and loss of property value? What about increased health risks associated with high EMF exposure? The propaganda by electric power companies nationwide is that research is inconclusive regarding increased health problems and yet public perception prevails. Research has yet to disprove public perception of the danger of electrical power stations. Furthermore, public perception drives property values. Finally, according an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, March 10th, Entergy reviewed 5 sites for a sub power station. According to this article, the demand for power is largely needed at the 1-430 and Colonel Glenn exit area. If the demand at this intersection will "increase by 80% by the year 2011 as a result of the introduction of the Rave theatre 3 car lots, and proposed shopping centers" why is Entergy not building here? I have learned it is because the cost of the land is too high for Entergy to purchase this site. Why didn't Entergy purchase this land ahead of time? Understandably, Entergy wants the "least expensive" site. Entergy's preferred site (which is site B according to the article) is the MOST DETRIMENTAL for the city of Little Rock and its citizens. The article further quotes Greg Grillo as saying "your lights are going out ... there won't be enough output to meet the demand." This statement is indicative of poor planning and a lack of forward thinking and action on behalf of Entergy Corporation. Site "B" is the most inhabited and residentially developed of all the sites reviewed. It is the most desirable site for further residential development because of its beauty and proximity to the city. As a citizen of this beautiful city and a neighbor and customer of Entergy, I have serious concerns about this issue. A vote yes to the conditional use permit would reward poor planning and a failure of Little Rock Planning Commission to promote careful and thorough Rlanning and development and to protect the beauty that makes this a "city in a ark." Each of the other four sites has fewer families to put in harms way and would be the least destructive to the environment. A vote NO to the conditional use permit would be most in keeping Little Rock's Planning and Development mission statement. "To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. " A vote yes to the conditional use permit for the Colonel Glenn valley would defy the very purpose and intent of the planning and development mission statement. Entergy has other options and I hope that Little Rock and Entergy can come to an agreement that is a win/win for both the citizens of Little Rock and the "neighbors and community" that Entergy boasts of on its website. Sincerely, 2-1 cc: Mr. Hugh McDonald, Presi ent and CEO of Entergy Arkansas Entergy of Arkansas P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 4 jp 0 0 0 olls O%iti a �• •i..hr i_Sf �1 7_ _ lit. a+ 'w s. s T 1p t r• + +.. k 0 0 f 0 0 CN FIF C) 0 0 w i fit Carney, Dana From: Sue Ann Stephens [sa14O75@pol.bz] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:15 AM To: wyliepm@hughes.net Cc: Carney, Dana Subject: Fw: Emailing: PICT0032.JPG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Ann Stephens" <sal4075@pol.bz> To: <arkansasappraisers@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Fw: Emailing: PICT0032.JPG > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue Ann Stephens" <sal4075@pol.bz> > To: "Stephen Giles" <sgiles@gileslaw.net> > Cc: "danny" <beavv@pgtc.com>; <JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com>; > <jolleyl@alltel.net>; "tammy" <tmclain@clearmountain.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:21 PM > Subject: Fw: Emailing: PICT0032.JPG >>I visited with Tom Larson this AM at FTN Environmental >> Consultants. Ashley Pope told me he does flood >> studies. He asked me to email him the flood photos >> from last Sat. which I did. He wrote this email back >> just now. Boy are they all tied together in what seems >> like a conspiracy. Ted Thomas from PSC >> just called me. He has looked up a CCN rule which >> seems to say that Entergy does not have to do >> ANYTHING in order to hook on to existing Transmission >> lines. If they went to the rock quarry they would have to >> go before the PSC. However, it does seen from what Ted Thomas >> they still do have to explain the m >> costs. He told me the LR Planning Commission would >> be the one to make Entergy do certain fencing, land- >> scaping, etc. What a joke! Also, Donna James said >> the gravel road could be acceptable for that subdivision because >> are only 3 lots and it is country property. >> That is totally unacceptable - >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tom Larson" <tal@ftn-assoc.com> >> To: "Sue Ann Stephens" <sal4075@pol.bz> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 1:40 PM >> Subject: Re: Emailing: PICT0032.JPG said that there >>> Since we are under contract with Entergy we are unable to perform such a >>> study. There are other companies that can help you. Hope we can be of >>> assisstance on other projects. >>> Tom Larson >>> At 01:27 PM 5/2/2006, you wrote: >>>>The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link »»attachments: >>>>PICT0032.JPG 1 pensa[vr`.•'niages for their yield losses as well as puni- tive damages and litigation costs from Universal Crop Protection -Alliance, eUnited Agri Products, Albaugh Inc" Nufarm Americas Inc. and Agriliance LLC - 1 be farmers are repre- sented by Hank Bates of Little Rock -based Cauley, ,#Owman, Carney & Wil- liams; Bruce McMath of Little Rock -based McMath Woods; and William French of Dallas -based Looper, Reed and McGraw. The State Plant Board re- sponded earlier this year to similar complaints from cot- ton farmers by banning most uses of 2,4-D between April 15 and Sept. 15 in 10 Arkansas counties: Clay, Craighead, Crittenden,_ Cross, Greene, Lee, Mississippi, Phillips, Poinsett and St. Francis. Arkansas 20 rises 0.71; Dillard's gains nearly $1 The Arkansas 20, a price - weighted index that tracks public companies based in the state, rose 0.71 to 231.62 Thursday. Arkansas Best Corp. shares rose $1.03 to $41.29. Dillard's Inc: s stock in- creased 93 cents to $36.30. The index was developed by Bloomberg News and the Arkansas Democrat -Gazette with a base value of 100 as of Dec. 30,1997. +' + + ! Acxiom Carp. 27.80 -0.29 AERT 1.37 -0.04 A to Corp. 6&52 -0.03 America's tw.mart Inc, 13.56 +0 23 Arkaffias gest Co 41.29 +1.03 Mdor Electric 45.38 &nk o e 28.72 ae ticim r Co 53.95 -0.28 ©il Inc. 36.30 +093 E u[ty Me Fia Ho ding _410-0-06 First Fed Banes ares 24.08 +01 Home BancS ares 22 30 -0.04 ]B Hunt Trans ort 29.14 -0.03 Mu59.00 -0.06 PAM Transportation 18.35 -0.47 SimmonsRrst NtL 28.21 4.21 Tyson 22.29 +0.02 UM Tru 16.75 +0.40 W -Mart stores 47.60 +0.48 m stream 15.02 +0.03 ArkansasOnline.com ■Need a midday stock quote? ry our Web site. BY STEVE PAINTER ARKANSAS' DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE ROGERS - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. needs another year to fine- tune its efforts to match its product lineups to populations of shoppers, the company's top merchandiser said Thursday. The remarks from. john Flem- ing, executive vice president and chief marketing officer, came on the eve of Wal -Mart's annual shareholder meeting, where the company is expected to come under fire for the poor perfor- mance of its stock. Merchandising missteps have been blamed, in part, for slug- gish sales at stores open at least a year and for a huge buildup of another year to unsold inventory in apparel and home products. Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, embarked on its store - of -the -comm u>uty effort more than a year ago. "It's a work an progress, and I think ifs still going to be a year or so until we really get it fully activated with merchandise for each area," Fleming said in brief remarks to reporters during a stop at the Wal-Mart super- center on Pleasant Grove Road in Rogers. About 80 journalists, includ- ing some from India, China, Ja- pan, Mexico and Central Amer- ica, attended the company's media day in its hometown of Jud e in substation case hears flooding concerns He's deciding if Entergy plan needs state OK BY BILL W. HORNADAY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZEM Potential flooding problems with Entergy Arkansas Inc: s proposed electric substation in southwest Pulaski County pose a dilemma for an Arkansas Pub- lic Service Commission judge who heard nearby citizens' con ceras Thursday. Administrative Law Judge Burl C. Rotenberry told resi- dents and Entergy officials that if he decides that Entergy needs commission approval for the $5.6 million facility, he could at- tach conditions "to protect and preserve neighboring proper- ties" for the project to proceed at its preferred location, Yet if Entergy does not re- quire the commission's bless- meeting i, on the cat of Arkans Asked biggest cl "I think it sort of of able to de ing for the station - to be built under existing power lines in a residential area two miles west of interstate 430 off Colo- nel Glenn Road - Rotenberry said the commission would be powerless to impose such mea- sures. ,,This judge would have no control over what mitigation or flood control measures might be imposed," he said. For more than a year, sever- al issues - which range from flood' ag, fire protection, traf- fic hazards and noise concerns to whether Entergy chose the cheapest option out of five proposed sites - have dogged plans to build Entergy's first substation in the Little Rock See ENTERGY, Page 21) ferent Boss family of Dow Jones to discuss bid with Murdoch ___._.___ A, DEMOCRAT-GAZET'M PRFSS SERVICES NEW yORK - The control- ling shareholders of The Wall street journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. said late Thursday that they would consider a bid from media mogul Rupert Mur- doch to buy the company, as well as other potential offers. The Bancroft family said in a st.. tement that it would meet witli Murdoch to discuss his has work products graphic,c will take general - ries. Mark retail cor bid, which became public in early May. The statement shows a softening of the position of the family members, who had pre- viously indicated that they in- tended to block Murdochs bid to buy the company. The Bancrofts said the family "remains resolute in its commit- ment ommitment to preserve and protect the editrial independence and ZeeMU OCH, Page 2D A Wache Wir to I BY I] T CHI little if acquiri top mol via said buy A•1 lion in as M 3 ++ Ltl G14) Wra Cu y y �No3� p x 0 w Sf z > 4 aEl,,�,�wc�A q^ey Q ❑ Cu NO 044 y Ae ❑ i,r `❑ m q q [L �+ su 44, a y40. L ° �a+ s� �s Q 4f 0 p7 rq ❑ G. a 0 ick �t •N «q N i AgN ' 10O N b j 0 ulR. U s. " w ❑ o y eA css 4 34 q ` ++ v > Q—Z - ,a Qa a, 5'❑t�rotoo ❑ o s U R Clr vii 4.IA.� 0 CJ ++ H a 4, Q+�°7. 3 ❑ a � q ro �❑ y 4. gn 03 Cu ❑ •meq cd Q it u vi 0 OJ 10 1 b CO ❑ ..Q Sar 6 I W �+ d •C7 S� ,+ ED 0,0 bo NA C7 •'❑ El L:fa " 40 ¢"0 i s to 4a cV 01 01 i6 jr 10 «. m N u ° 4" p 0 C7 0 � 07 i Vj ❑ CIS a 7L a U y h ZJ 2. W U 19 X N U 4 u y ❑ g U fi JU •RQ •W)'❑ Q ❑ N W w M 0 w uar Elsb �•� q^' 'dZ'.SmH ❑ q P4 _� spa•=,ii.fn in�$��"rn [51^���'^$ `�-, 7, V ++ r 3. ++ •,p U p.O i ryNeef "N �r sjlbp [,Q •7tias rn >OU 4-17y a0 I j LJ .LY La] y Q1 U0 w F~i •u �❑+ `v 0 a a'c�cvzpsy2i� N ❑ U El ❑ Uqu 3❑ cc yN+C+ oN❑•p'daOU 4 ❑�, U CI v 4-54 01 C ci .., •es ❑, •N y a ❑ c' .4 cn a� +�! ►•.:'O y •� w f� Val ' N V V o 04, 4kbq Li 0v �o w�s❑ orx7�c au�'a� �{ H m E❑�y0av•o4 D� . qn,-r❑4NEnaas yv .°w�n. >~ " 5 +v to ❑ N❑ �, i, u' ', q❑ °�v � p'gin' u �4 90 p� 004a o Cl p+ .ra 0�,q +vmorib Q�'+,GC:m ! qt -0 =4 =-� m y � p ❑ .❑ C7 '� � &. •Ly u m°U' y 0 cN.i t~ C] N B.r" a 4 -a.+ OVS v Q. , V' $4Q 0„Q w V q RC14 m 1V -,w :1 H� 1N:7. 1 4[40 0. W-❑ �N y o to ha�H ❑p ° ❑io&.❑�rok a�GRagivr-:aa r� pr c�i R �, D ` gyp]' ` a O etl •O 'dx pp&.p'd q I❑❑ O . .� uu4b �ro 4H . >w y 0�1 a 04 �} � agi•�o W -d � �, � q �•� °' ❑ w U m w Q) CO d to bo : •,., •.O y Rr 07 C`i [V c� n .c i.7 c+ .V) 2' ” N � 4 � ,R E 2 >,5. v i a 6CS 22 21,++."[] U O •q Qua , 4U.i U t .0 H �y fir' 000 ❑ C. .j01 a t i.t M h .%� o g 0] Cu 10" N goo U 'd ` I i (, f Q� Vel 4y+ �� "'_'.'f � � •.% � LU • �rwsx y c ' e° ° s' � °j'H� a:N a ' a ❑ a 1 1 �A�ro 0z za , ❑ at Itf Ce v V >� (D J64 ro; 'u Cd -Ci y S!7 C i C6 a CD � = v Q �1 Com• CDCD � {C G � 7, V ++ r 3. ++ •,p U p.O i ryNeef "N �r sjlbp [,Q •7tias rn >OU 4-17y a0 I j LJ .LY La] y Q1 U0 w F~i •u �❑+ `v 0 a a'c�cvzpsy2i� N ❑ U El ❑ Uqu 3❑ cc yN+C+ oN❑•p'daOU 4 ❑�, U CI v 4-54 01 C ci .., •es ❑, •N y a ❑ c' .4 cn a� +�! ►•.:'O y •� w f� Val ' N V V o 04, 4kbq Li 0v �o w�s❑ orx7�c au�'a� �{ H m E❑�y0av•o4 D� . qn,-r❑4NEnaas yv .°w�n. >~ " 5 +v to ❑ N❑ �, i, u' ', q❑ °�v � p'gin' u �4 90 p� 004a o Cl p+ .ra 0�,q +vmorib Q�'+,GC:m ! qt -0 =4 =-� m y � p ❑ .❑ C7 '� � &. •Ly u m°U' y 0 cN.i t~ C] N B.r" a 4 -a.+ OVS v Q. , V' $4Q 0„Q w V q RC14 m 1V -,w :1 H� 1N:7. 1 4[40 0. W-❑ �N y o to ha�H ❑p ° ❑io&.❑�rok a�GRagivr-:aa r� pr c�i R �, D ` gyp]' ` a O etl •O 'dx pp&.p'd q I❑❑ O . .� uu4b �ro 4H . >w y 0�1 a 04 �} � agi•�o W -d � �, � q �•� °' ❑ w U m w Q) CO d to bo : •,., •.O y Rr 07 C`i [V c� n .c i.7 c+ .V) 2' ” N � 4 � ,R E 2 >,5. v i a 6CS 22 21,++."[] U O •q Qua , 4U.i U t .0 H �y fir' 000 ❑ C. .j01 a t i.t M h .%� o g 0] Cu 10" N goo U 'd ` I i (, f Q� Vel 4y+ �� "'_'.'f � � •.% � LU • �rwsx y c ' e° ° s' � °j'H� a:N a ' a ❑ a 1 1 �A�ro 0z za , ❑ at Itf Ce v V b N C3+q� to w vw..y. y s zy47 Ok q� Q N y air mCu��,� ��, �� Z � to -0 aw , C Id 0 b °' .2} .y N .,❑ ,e'er 04 %a V U .❑ I e=9i��`n O e�c�e ° b -s4 ❑. �+�7 E 'f -S -i >� (D J64 ro; 'u Cd -Ci y 60 U Cl �r, La! rA v+ 4 a 3 4' `J = w R y�r Q a = v Q • ❑ O U.O� a.. b N C3+q� to w vw..y. y s zy47 Ok q� Q N y air mCu��,� ��, �� Z � to -0 aw , C Id 0 b °' .2} .y N .,❑ ,e'er 04 %a V U .❑ I e=9i��`n O e�c�e ° b -s4 ❑. �+�7 E 'f -S -i interesting the content, the more I will pay" Interviewed about the ad, Zimet said, "I view presidents as commodities. I buy and sell them:' He was less candid about his identity-, giving an alias — Robert James. Mote: digging revealed who he was. FELINE FERVOR: A . second note, dated May 10, was given to residents of Little Rock's Hillsborough subdivision. It states: Results of the investigation into the abduction of domestic cats ... have been provided to the Little Rock Animal Services (L.RAS). A resident on Beckenham Cove has. allegedly trapped many cats.over the past months and has illegally disposed of them. Please contact the Director of the LRAS at376-3067 in support of his efforts to enforce the Animal Cruelty provisions against.this resident" 'CLASS ACT: Arkansans of note speak to 2006 graduating classes. In Little Rock on May 20, novelist John Grisham gives the Episcopal Collegiate School's commencement address. For those who missed the following, reported here in December, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush speak at Tulane University in New Orleans tomorrow. ` BITS AND PIECES: The story of two Lakeside High seniors in Hot -Springs charged -with insult or. abuse to a teacher after putting a laxative in tea that two teachers drank gets national play on www. smolsinggun.com.... Monica Cayce of Fayetteville and Joseph Meadows of Fort Smith made it to the final four, on CBS's The Amazing Race before being eliminated. Cayce graduates tomorrow from the University of Arkansas and joins Meadows in - his home-building business..... On UPN's America's Next Top Model, I !anielle, the Little Rack baby sitter; ls.having better luck; sloe recently made it into the final three,- Paper hree:paper Traits appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Contact Lin- I-, da Caillouet at (501,999-3636 or at Icaillouet@arkansasonline.com Lin&nark-burffing sentence: 1 0 years Penalty same in both Templars_ cases BY JOHN LYNCH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE A 43 -year-old Fort Smith man: partly responsible for the fire that destroyed a downtown Lit- tle Rock landmark deserves "the wrath of society" and 10 years in prison, a Pulaski County circuit judge ruled Thursday. The sentence for John Carr Murie comes almost three weeks after Judge Chris. Piazza found Murie guilty of reck- less burning for his role in the March 2005 blaze that destroyed the historic Mosaic Templars building at Broadway and Ninth streets. The charge is a Class D felo- ny that usually carries up to six years in prison, but as a habitual offender, Murie faced a maxi- mum of 15 years. His: attorney, Tim Boozer, told the judge that state sentencing guidelines rec- ommend 18 months in prison for someone with Murie's crim- inal record. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Matt Quinn said Mu- rie has six felony convictions, including two for residential burglary and two for gun pos- session by a felon. Marie's 10 -year sentence equals the term Piazza ordered.. for Wade Alvin Smith; 40, who pleaded no contest to the.charge in February. The men, homeless at the time, broke into the 93 -year-old state-owned building to ger out of the freezing rain and set up a camp inside. Their fixe got out See TEMPLAR, Page 5B Enterff-substaflon gets LRpanels OK BY BRANDON TUBBS A FSAS DEMOCRAT-RAZETFE Despite opposition to the proposal, the Little Rock Plan- ning Commission approved the permit needed for Entergy Ar- kansas to pursue plans to build a power substation west of In- terstate 430 off Colonel Glenn Road. The 9-1 decision during a regularPlanning Commission meeting Thurs.dgy evening followed about 90 minutes of discussion. Commissioner Fred ;Allen Jr. voted against approv- ing the permit. He did not give a reason for his vote. Commis- sioner Pam Adcock abstained. During the discussion, En- tergy Arkansas officials told the commission why the substation Is needed, and area residents and their attorney told the com- mission why Entergy should build the substation somewhere else. The substation would be similar to Entergy's Pinnacle See SUBSTATION, Page 513 Dwayne Glanton, a forth Little F from the rose garden on the grou said about 15,000 bees had star and most of the others: followed. Ozone mor BY KATHERINE MARKS ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE Ozone forecasters will keeping their eyes on the sk and their ears on the radio th year hoping that a little cool eration from Mother Nature ar the general public will enab. central Arkansas to contint meeting federal air-quality stat dards. "We certainly are at the mere WW seek odeflnes, on time kids spend on BY SETH- BLOMELEY: ARKANSAS DEMOCRXr-GAZFTPE Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson an- nounced Thursday that if he were elected, he would dictate I t-4re be "reasonable standards" I fol the amount of time Arkan- sas public school students spend riding buses. He said the maximum would be determined after the state Department of Education does a study. He also said he hasn't deck,,d what would happen if a student's ride exceeded the ma$ i mum. -Any parent understands th, an .hour -and -a -half bus ride or way,. or three hours in a day, detrimentalto children's lean ing environ=ment," said Hutchv son of Little Rocma farmer col gressman. "It's c mon sense 6y� r --)w a T T az T rev, m '-° � r w � �rInL tz�=ra,-.mre n'aoCL CO) D.IM � n �. o GN. ro a n P,,� ;,.�j = rt �•e o .. S 0 Oma- o M CD 'n 9 n rn ¢. �F(n SU IC�C�jj o p -p, o y�- o' �� --. n0 m m rt rt N y (D N �--i O� rnn� � �7 ro V �iQ- n C3 a Fi, �-. lD (p p' r ❑ w (� R- w rt moW(ps on r� �ro o�'�°o 4?4 pop cm '� sn ''* st " Vi 1, O �•' (p CD m (D OJ p ry O n i v, y. p 0—, yO a hs pG':181 mK 09 W " p � uibi � "�p± n rD m � _ io' �, n E - 4- Bay, 'gym �F o rt� �.�o o �C o n�•r� �° ro K00 o P t� '7yCD C. o rn wap°,.° n ch o 0 to c� �oFlooaQ a Oro o a 47^ m� w -y -� 0ID 11 LO ° 0 CL CL 0cn o T X P'1 O T �v ao � T � T az T rev, m '-° � r w � �rInL tz�=ra,-.mre n'aoCL CO) D.IM � n �. o GN. ro a n P,,� ;,.�j = rt �•e o .. S 0 Oma- o M CD 'n 9 n rn ¢. �F(n SU IC�C�jj o p -p, o y�- o' �� --. n0 m m rt rt N y (D N �--i O� rnn� � �7 ro V �iQ- n C3 a Fi, �-. lD (p p' r ❑ w (� R- w rt moW(ps on r� �ro o�'�°o 4?4 pop cm '� sn ''* st " Vi 1, O �•' (p CD m (D OJ p ry O n i v, y. p 0—, yO a hs pG':181 mK 09 W " p � uibi � "�p± n rD m � _ io' �, n E - 4- Bay, 'gym �F o rt� �.�o o �C o n�•r� �° ro K00 o P t� '7yCD C. o rn wap°,.° n ch o 0 to c� �oFlooaQ a Oro o a 47^ m� w -y -� 0ID 11 LO ° 0 CL CL 0cn o CD TCT _Ort cvi, inOD •. it? r �i 'O Q O Q r lir A ~• a' tz Moo wLO O Q P a �� I� T041 n° moCl �►� �+ Q o f► r�► ro�o'COD 0Pd&�:.rt�g- cD o TCb G. rt lD p (D C d Q �ocr',U(D �'rCOnp nyu g. (-OD0,'A, fD ro o + p.�n �' a0 0 n n On Gl 80 wo' cogs°�e�oob is r O O R rt (D (D rt , w rt p G- (D w rt n eD � rynry � CD ID M ❑ro Q'fDw�GOL•` erEr �p� N ,CD @' o CD �9.poo p�rp . is �- p' p • p rtFr p� t w 0 Q. c cn CD MOD CD 3 O cCD 0 3 3 CD 0 CD CD 0 3 CD cn 0 x CD 0 0 0 cn 0 o� C) rn CD — o Co c� 0 CD CD 0 - CD cn F: 0 cn rf 0 0 < CD n 0 00m CD cn cD 3 0 � CD CD o cD < CD CD 0 0 CD o CD x C.P 0 0 M 0 0 11 CD w cn CD 0 0 0 0 G) 0 M CD w • 0 w aD 0 0 0 0 w n. r� CD cn cr cnv o� CD CD w 0 w w cn CD Z cD m Q. 0 c op • • • I � I I m I I I I I ;u CDCD CL z w m w Cn z r` 0 0 w cn. w o Q- o o o o . ocr 0 0 (J) CL r O :3 :3 CL CDQ-CD CL ACL: 0) CT G) �- < 0) � � � — cn CD �' o � �' � _ �' �' � � to cis O — o : CD D CD FE. �-0 (D ch CD o ,-� — �, -�(D Q Q <. O r �, w r-t- Q �, CD _. O CD 0 c CL CD nC=D CD ` Q O 0 CD CD ■s cn Cn 3^ n CD O 3 0 CD cn -0 cn r-f- CD — CCn - - — CD -. < O on o N c 0 C) CD CD CD� O <. �- O � Cn CD U) 0 CL a C7C�>mw;um'vC/) CD CD0 0 0 D M 0 --1 r--l- CD 0 - 0 n �- D —` X X O -' CD r-.1- _-. ---,, CD O O 0 `C X3 3 r+ mn c'n 3 3CD`< `< CD wo 0 0 cn CL c: :3 m e-,- fm+4 CD r-+' 0 37 CD 70 U) cn = o 0-_ v X — o cn r-.io3 r -q- CD CD _. CD Co cn 0 ol CD cn CD— — CD ol c 0 3 CD r-�- cn 0 w co FT - In o o- CD :3 :3 <CD 0- CD CD 0 CD 0 w •- CD cn cn V] ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SITES • 1 _ iY Existing 115 kV • t �I_ ' i� ,li �'' ti t `- �_ �. Transmission Line ,_ - !,•,.• Alternative E - Located 1.2 Miles "rc North of Col. Glenn Road at I Existing 115 kV Transmission Line -• I - - - Alternative A- Located 1.7 Miles z _ - East of Existing 115 kV V •] Transmission Line Near 1-030 and ojl Col. Glenn Road . . ~Y .ate-_ :rr.v - h- ��'' •'E� '. i 1.;� 3-� .� L f R1 t -L7 �. — �.�-• ��+ - ''!' �. ^ 1' .. Halunad Cciri '{ �a �' I ' �� _ice, .. lV1 . ,_- r• s'i'r,. �( -�_ - _ _ •_ _t11� • Alternative B - Located Between Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road' ll LD •� -• at Existing 115 kV Transmission Line Alternative C - Located 0.7 Miles _ . T" - West " - West of Existing 115 kV �,.... i Transmission Line on Lawson = kiancrn�.' Road Quarry) •\ _ - '; r• •c ,f� =JY• *r. :d �i `� - it Alternative D -Located 1.5 Miles •V �l y` -- • ° d' f 'ti.r `^ "`':` .:w - l- South of Lawson Road at Existing1 •�'^.�. ;� - - '`` 115 kV Transmission Line - { Existing 115 kV • 'i1 Transmission Line O .I[IGr V� Z r_� f •.`:• I 1 .'1 -- l t lam' �'4 L y _ r val{ar a e1 J3 o iJ . ca r.DR { 9uk-.�..�:.1.���... ,G..J 1 :...a w_...... n....._a.. O..a....L:..11.. I.........L...a 1 .....1......... �._ _,.,.a l.,. G....:.a....a.,\ 0 • 0 cn CD 00 X n �- .CD R.0 O < CD F4' CD _. CD Cn CD CD Z CD CL W O _. cn cn (a CL Co � CD < �, '''' CD �+ CD 0_ �, < O cn cn :3O c �- O — —. :D CD O 2 .0 CD O Cl) .n+ + O .-.� OO O < O CDcn O cn O r -q- CD _. CD O cn 3 -� CD CD— 0 m cn CD D &--I: cn cQ CD cn c cn CD o � ' cr 0. O � CD -n 3 O CD CD C: CD CL I m I • G) 0 CD z z O O O 5`0 %< CD CCDD I Q Q CD CL CL --ti =. + �] CD CD �- O O r O O � FD7 o cn cnCD 3, 3 O CD cn. cn. cr O � CD O=. p � 0) ::E 0 CD C) tL; 0 �- O CD 07 Cj) C: CD O n 0_ OG) =17�v CD O-� =3 CD CL A.K - - fir_, � ••1 .s° 4k r= 10 ,.a _ .v11, 2 . f, n / 1 7ncp < O -�� to Cn O O Q C: 0 CD T C) O CD CD CD � CSD O• O =3 CD O o-Cn 30r - m CD co. �. CD CD T; CQ =rCCD CD n O O -0 CQ CDCD --h� CD CD C —70 CD n �G CD O CD CD Cn CDS -0 CD cn — CD — O :23 CS CD D w c CD '� cn CSD CD V cr O Q CD O (� CD O CD CD " r--i- CD O O (n --' CD V W O _ CD cni V ;u m (nQ CD 0 :3n m ;u CD 3CD 1<a r� 0 =3n CD cn VJ Z -, D 00 ,__.. CDcn 0) CD 0 CD ° .--- n r -4- t° 0 CD CD cn = M CD O ° -0 cn V CD CDCD o1 0- O n w° CD 0) ro r 0 O cc 0 cn ,{ cQ CD 1 :3 -•C:C. :3 � � c0 CD CD 0 -<5'w CD 3 w�CL CD CL�. ° CD an 3 cn cn r� 0 =3n CD cn vi. (P wn W(DN C) 2) C10) �•a �. Cr (A X CD rv, ma 0Ca tD M M 0 CL �. CD O C ,r. 0 0� X 0 r.. m :3 cr to �w �. (D m 0 m 7" -h 5" 'a n (1) C) �C w 0 CD rr = iii iC • •� ty 'I M4 CL =r� V) _„ � CL (a1a ,(.3�•�ca W rMIL 2: i. U) 0) 0 (D _ 05- 27. L'�• 09 0 0 U) M CD �� _. V m rMOL rh AkEnteW March 6, 2006 Tony Bozynski, Planning Director L.R. Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Open House — Entergy Arkansas, hicc.. Dear Planning Di r Bozynski: Entergy Customer Service Ninth & Louisiana P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Tel 501 396 4337 James Jones Regional Customer Service Manager You are cordially invited to a drop-in Open House to discuss an electrical substation that is being planned by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) for the west Little Rock area. The new substation is needed to accommodate load growth and ensure continued reliable electric service for the city of Little Rock in the Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road areas. EAI has evaluated several sites in west Little Rock for the new substation, all of which were evaluated in an effort to have as little impact on surrounding landowners as possible while keeping construction costs at a reasonable level. The Company would like to show you detailed maps of the substation sites that were identified as potential site locations and our evaluations of those locations, as well as provide other information about the project at the drop-in Open House which will be held in the Family Life Center at Crystal Hill Baptist Church, located at 18823 Crystal Valley Road, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. on Monday evening, March 20, 2006. I hope that you can spend a few minutes with us during that evening. The Open House will give you an opportunity to provide feedback concerning Entergy's selection of its substation site and to ask questions about the project. Several Company representatives will be on hand to answer your questions and to show you maps and photographs of the project area. The enclosed map portrays the approximate locations of the alternative substation sites that were evaluated. If you have any questions about the Open House, please give me a call at (501) 396-4337. I am looking forward to seeing you at the Open House on March 20, 2006. Sincerely, James E. Jones Manager, Regional Customer Service Enclosure ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SITES y Transmission Line Alternative E - Located 1.2 Miles? North of Col. Glenn Road at _ -- T Existing 115 kV Transmission Line - ll��✓s, Alternative A- Located 1.7 Miles East of Existing 115 kV Transmission Line Near 1-430 and •�� i� • `' tr_-�-: _ `4: �� . -•i �:y_ -:,'-' _ __ Col. Glenn Road • - - � _ -�. � ..�'�� •'� `, `` _ - _ Ate`: �. �._ - � _ :} �i - '', ; .:w a;�!'.•, _._ _-i-"��- �� `r it -• .:� •p�u91 C;uirieir'.- -'4 - _ • ` • _ Alternative B - Located Between 1 ` +'•~___ '; �..• -� Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road' at Existing 115 kV Transmission Cy� y Line W r t. Alternative C - Located 0.7 Miles i,' . r; ``� I I West of Existing 115 kV _'''�°� R+i • ;�_ • i ` Transmission Line on Lawson 14'. r rapdo '�j� • RaaAsy' �. 1 r n Road (Rock Quarry) :� {T I' - _fir r _ '.. -I_,.:. • I„ �g ,. t �. __-? . •• _ �L•r p+sy7 `° _'••�- .ur4•y�s,r'fIl " aan +' Alternative D -Located 1.5 Miles South of Lawson Road at Existing ° + 115 kV Transmission Line ,,��i-' �} ; �- � 'tit ,{ --� 'r- �, '�, • r I `. { •! - '~1 n� '' Existing 115 kV !I I? Transmission Line � .ate •r.. • !� � ' � valtey Pi TTILI ,E • . - .'} •{ � Ru�akwl' •_-.- 29" Cr,O.. ;Sud .. ti � -.. "+'{. .I•.J S • 7 •... '.1•� _ •per �� ',��• •� ,� - - _- '?� ,• • • •+, W 'fi 7i•..:' ¢.— ; ���...�?ria -\-- '1 •o:.- I . � 4' '`�5n - nN �_.. ... Y - If .� `!E I. � 1� , (Red Lined Areas Denote Potentially Impacted Landowners and/or Residents) Bozynski, Tony From: JONES, JAMES ERIC Djones2@entergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:49 PM To: Bozynski, Tony Subject: FW: Sierra Club Letter at City Council Tony, See below comment from Glen Hooks, Executive Director of Sierra Club James -----Original Message ----- From: Glen Hooks fmailto:ctlen.hooks(&sierraclub.orgI Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:29 PM To: DAUGHERTY, DANIEL Subject: RE: Sierra Club Letter at City Council Dan— My December comments in the paper, as I recall, were in relation to whether or not there should be an open and public hearing on the matter. My understanding was that Entergy was seeking a waiver of the public hearing requirement. I supported the concept of such a hearing and said that, if you shared the same information with the public that you shared with me, you made a pretty convincing case. The Sierra Club's current position is as follows: 1. We believe that the City Board should publicly hear the pros and cons of both the Colonel Glenn and the quarry site, with equal opportunity given to Entergy and the Colonel Glenn residents, before making a decision; 2. We believe that any decision as to siting the new substation should place environmental concerns and the rights of landowners high on the priority list, including light pollution, noise pollution, and disturbance/destruction of land and trees; 3. After visiting with both Colonel Glenn residents and representatives from Entergy, and touring the sites, Sierra Club realizes that there are competing environmental plusses and minuses to each of these sites. 4. Sierra Club urges the City Board and Entergy to site any new substation at the location that will do the least amount of environmental damage and the least amount of disturbance to the enjoyment of area landowners. If the Colonel Glenn site is chosen, Sierra Club strongly recommends that Entergy and the landowners have a clear understanding as to: a) what constitutes an acceptable level of noise emanating from the substation; b) what constitutes an acceptable level of light emanating from the substation; and c) what steps will be taken by Entergy to "mask" the view of the substation from area residents. Dan, I'm going to share these comments Sue Ann Stephens so that nobody is unclear before tonight's hearing. Sincerely, Glen Hooks Sierra Club of Arkansas Page 1 of 2 Bozynski, Tony From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:04 PM To: Sue Ann Stephens; Clan greenberg; Jim Lynch; doug reed; Rena Upperman; JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com Cc: Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce; Stodola, Mark; Mann, Bill; Dawson, Cindy Subject: RE: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members Dear Mrs. Stephens, This confirms my earlier answer to you. The amendment was made at the 2005 regular session of the General Assembly, and I believe that the City supported the amendment. I am surprised about the 1/3 number, but that is consistent with the idea that a municipality may have more than one extraterritorial planning area. The City ordinance has evidently not changed in accordance with this statute. Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code 5 23-27 (1988) states ... The planning commission shall consist of a total of eleven (11) members, of which number then (10) members shall be citizens appointed by the city manager and approved by the board of directors of the city, one (1) member shall be a member of the Little Rock School Board or its appointed representative who shall be selected by such board and approved by the board of directors of the city. Under this formulation, it is conceivable that there is an extraterritorial member since the school district boundaries and the city limits are not that same. But, from the way the ordinance is worded, that would be a serendipity and not a requirement. The amendment to the Act was encouraged at the direction of Mayor Dailey, if I remember correctly, because there had been a practice of appointing at least one member from the extraterritorial area when an issue was raised and it was learned that was not appropriate. I have forwarded your email to the City Manager and to the Director of Planning Et Development. I see that you have evidently already contacted Mayor Stodola, but in the event you have not, I am forwarded a copy of this email to him. If these appointments are already occurring pursuant to a Planning Commission bylaw, then we need to amend LRC 5 23-27 to comply with the state statute. If not, then the policy makers need to determine if they wish to utilize the new provisions of the amendment. Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney Thomas M. Carpenter OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (T)(501) 371-6875 (F) (501) 371-4675 2/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 (M) (501) 993-1052 From: Sue Ann Stephens (mailto:sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:35 PM To: clan greenberg; Jim Lynch; doug reed; Rena Upperman; JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com Cc: Minyard, Brian; Carpenter, Tom; Mayor Subject: Fw: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members DOES THIS ANSWER OUR QUESTION, FINALLY? Sue Ann Stephens To: sa14075@pol.bz Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members 14-56-405. Appointment of members. (a) Appointment and terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as provided by city ordinance. (b) The legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the commission from electors living outside the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. History. Act 1957, No 186. 2.A.S.A. 1947 19-2826; Acts 2005, No 901.1 2/19/2007 Page 1 of 2 Minyard, Brian From: Sue Ann Stephens [sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:25 PM To: Carpenter, Tom Cc: dan greenberg; Jim Lynch; doug reed; joLLeyCarolyn007@aol.com; Minyard. Brian Subject: Re: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members Thank you for clearly up this matter for us all. Sincerely, Sue Ann Stephens ----- Original Message ----- From: Carpenter, Tom To: Sue Ann Stephens ; dan_gg eenbera ; Jim Lynch ; doug reed. ; Rena Upperman_ ; Jolley_Carol n0070 -aol.com Cc: Minyard, Brian ;Mayor ; Soiynski Tony ;Moore. Bruce; Stadota, Mark; Mann. Bill ; Dawson. Cindy Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:04 PM Subject: RE: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members Dear Mrs. Stephens, This confirms my earlier answer to you. The amendment was made at the 2005 regular session of the General Assembly, and I believe that the City supported the amendment. I am surprised about the 1/3 number, but that is consistent with the idea that a municipality may have more than one extraterritorial planning area. The City ordinance has evidently not changed in accordance with this statute. Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code § 23-27 (1988) states ... The planning commission shall consist of a total of eleven (11) members, of which number then (10) members. shall be citizens appointed by the city manager and approved by the board of directors of the city, one (1) member shall be a member of the Little Rock School Board or its appointed representative who shall be selected by such board and approved by the board of directors of the city. Under this formulation, it is conceivable that there is an extraterritorial member since the school district boundaries and the city limits are not that same. But, from the way the ordinance is worded, that would be a serendipity and not a requirement. The amendment to the Act was encouraged at the direction of Mayor Dailey, if I remember correctly, because there had been a practice of appointing at least one member from the extraterritorial area when an issue was raised and it was learned that was not appropriate. I have forwarded your email to the City Manager and to the Director of Planning Et Development. I see that you have evidently already contacted Mayor Stodola, but in the event you have not, I am forwarded a copy of this email to him. If these appointments are already occurring pursuant to a Planning Commission bylaw, then we need to amend LRC 5 23-27 to comply with the state statute. If not, then the policy makers need to determine if they wish to utilize the new provisions of the amendment. 2/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney Thomas M. Carpenter OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (T) (501) 371-6875 (F) (501) 371-4675 (M) (501) 993-1052 From: Sue Ann Stephens [mailto:sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:35 PM To: Clan greenberg; Jim Lynch; doug reed; Rena Upperman; JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com Cc: Minyard, Brian; Carpenter, Tom; Mayor Subject: Fw: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members DOES THIS ANSWER OUR QUESTION, FINALLY?-' Sue Ann Stephens To: sa14075Co7 ol.bz Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: RE,sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members 14-56-405. Appointment of members. (a) Appointment and terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as provided by city ordinance. (b) The legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the commission from electors living outside the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. History. Act 1957, No 186. 2.A.S.A. 1947 19-2826; Acts 2005, No 901.1 2/20/2007 Page 1 of 1 Minyard, Brian From: Sue Ann Stephens [sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:35 PM To: dan greenberg; Jim Lynch; doug reed; Rena Upperman; JoileyCarolyn007@aol.com Cc: Minyard, Brian; Carpenter, Tom; Mayor Subject: Fw: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members DOES THIS ANSWER OUR QUESTION, FINALLY? Sue Ann Stephens To: sa.14075.@pa1, bz Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members 14-56-405. Appointment of members. (a) Appointment and terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as provided by city ordinance. (b) The legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the commission from electors living outside the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. History. Act 1957, No 186. 2.A.S.A. 1947 19-2826; Acts 2005, No 901.1 2/20/2007 Page 1 of 1 Minyard, Brian From: BnFree2@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:16 PM To: sal4075@pol.bz; Minyard, Brian Subject: RE;sws:Arkansas Statue Planning Commission Members 14-56-405. Appointment of members. (a) Appointment and terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as provided by city ordinance. (b) The legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the commission from electors living outside the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. History. Act 1957, No 186. 2.A.S.A. 1947 19-2826; Acts 2005, No 901.1 2/20/2007 ARTICLE II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING Sec. 23-27. Members. Page 1 of 1 (a) The planning commission shall consist of a total of eleven (11) members, of which number ten (10) members shall be citizens appointed by the city manager and approved by the board of directors of the city, one (1) member shall be a member of the Little Rock School Board or its appointed representative who shall be selected by such board and approved by the board of directors of the city. (b) The citizen members shall be qualified by knowledge and experience in matters pertaining to the physical, social, economic and cultural development of the city and shall hold no other appointive or elective office in the city government except membership in the board of adjustment and shall be residents of the city or residents residing within the city's planning jurisdiction. All members shall serve without compensation. (c) Each appointed member shall serve for a term of three (3) years and until his successor is appointed and qualified. The anniversary date of each term shall be November 1, except that appointments to fill vacancies shall be for unexpired terms only, and except that any member whose term expires shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. (Code 1961, §§ 29-2, 29-3; Ord. No. 15, 782, § 1, 12-5-89) State law references: Planning commission membership, A.C.A. §§ 14-56-404, 14-56-405, 14-56- 409. http://libraryl.municode.com/mcc/DocView/I 1170/1/174/176 2/20/2007 NextPage NXT 3 (-'Code Search 1~ Boolean Search Document �, Results DodResults Search Form 211511 (:iq Arkansas Code (Non annotated] { Title 14. Local GOyemmerit_ Subtitle 3, Municipal Govemment, Cha Pter 56 'c pal Bu i Id ing And Zo n' n g RegulaU Ons - P lannirig. Subchapter 4. Munic!DaI Planning_ Q 14-56-401. Construction. Q 14-56-402. Authodlyi generally. 0 14-56-403, Purpose of plans. a 14-56-404. Planningoommission created. Q 14.56.405, Appointment of, members` Q 14-56-406. Commission officers. a 14-56-407. Meetirrgs of commission. Q 14.56-408. Rules and regulations. Q 14-56-409. Compensation of members. a 14-56-410, AWLQprtattons Q 14-56-411. Purpose of commission. 14-56412. Powers and duties of commission. Q 14x6413. Territorial jurisdiction. Q 14-56-414. Preparation of plans. Q14-56-415. Plan recommendations. n 14-56-416. Zoning ordinance. 14-56-417. Regulations to control develepmentofJand• 14-56-418. Setback ordinance. Q19. Co n tro I of road entry. Q 14-5"20. Adoption and amendment procedures - Q14-56421. Enforcgment of ordinances and reaulaVons. t_J 14-56-422. Adoption of pians, ordinances, and mzy ons. _ Q 14-56-423. Change in plans, etc. Q 14-56-424. Exis nng pians. etc. Q 14-56-425. Appeals jo circuli court. Q 14-56-426. Con rol of gropeMjuse - Proximity to milt instal! Page 1 of 1 Sync Contents pPrev Doc Next D 14-56-405. Appointment of members. (a) Appointment and terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as provided by city ordinance. (b) The legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the commission from electors living outside the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. History. Acts 1957, No. 186, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-2826; Acts 2005, No. 901, § 1. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr:code 2/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 Bozynski, Tony From: Sue Ann Stephens [sa14075@pol.bz] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:38 PM To: Mayor; board; Carpenter, Tom; Bozynski, Tony; doug reed; dan greenberg; Rena Upperman Cc: Jim Lynch; Rob Fisher Subject: Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road from Glen Hooks Subject: Proposed Entergy Substation on Colonel Glenn Road first sent May, 2006 RE: Poposetd EnfgW Substation on Colonel Glenn Road The Central Arkansas Group of the Sierra Club joins the organization of concerned property owners of Colonel Glenn Road who object to the initial proposed location of the Entergy substation. There are substantial reasons why the proposed location along Colonel Glenn Road is inappropriate and heedless. Locating a high voltage/high energy substation in close proximity to long-term property owners suggests that the only possible reason for that location would be that it is the lowest cost of several alternative sites. That location presently is pasture land, and is a beautiful valley with a sense of quietude and peace. It, being the lowest elevation, and a river valley that is prone to flooding, harbors a wealth of habitat that would most certainly be destroyed. Why? We think because of low imagination. Most of the residents have lived there in that beautiful valley for many years, and are keenly aware of the exquisite natural beauty of the setting. Of definite low imagination, actually one devoid of imagination, comes the idea that Entergy could, and have the power in their voice, will that the valley be struck down of this quality,.and you can see the impertinence of their idea. To arrive at the sense of what we're saying, it will be important for each of you if possible, or definitely a quorum of your group, to visit with the considerable number of activated property owners that care about the misapplied Colonel Glenn proposed site. All of them, from Howard and Sue Ann Stephens (phone number: 800-207-8702) and Dr. and Mrs. Rudy and Carolyn Jolley (501-225- 0098) will be happy to meet with you and point out the salient aspects of the several locations being considered, and will show you just how close by the large transformers would be to residences, the proposed juxtaposition of which would be only a few hundred feet. The Colonel Glenn property owners alternative: a site on Lawson road, some six -tenths of a mile away from the Colonel Glenn site, and a site that would bear the ability for enlargement for the future, is a rock quarry. It isn't flood prone, has a natural level rock floor, and, we guess, would cost a little more for Entergy to run spur transmission towers over to it. 2/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 Only with our visit were we sold... on the Lawson Road quarry site. It's a quite ugly, perfect site for high voltage. If the transformers catch fire and explode, the quarry would contain the exploding transformers and subsequent fire. On a daily basis the quarry would contain the audible hum of the huge transformers. Also, there are no expensive, established homesteads in the immediate vicinity. Please make your decision an informed one; and, we don't really see how you can actually be informed with a few charts and the seemingly -convincing statements by those paid to apply pressure. Please visit and make up your own mind. We recommend preserving the fundamental beauty of that valley. Thanks for your consideration. Bob Stodola, for The Sierra Club (Central Arkansas Group) Sierra Club 1308 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Office: (501) 301-8280 www. arkan s as . s ierracl ub. org 2/20/2007 Bozynski, Tony Page 1 of 1 From: Sue Ann Stephens [sal4075@pol.bz] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:27 PM To: Mayor Cc: board; Carney, Dana; baeyens; Carolyn Jolley; Diane Davis; gary markland; Grnyczr@aol.com; JolleyCarolyn007@aol.com; mike glidden; nancy roman; R. Jolley; Tammy McLain; Rena Upperman; Carpenter, Tom; Bozynski, Tony; Jeff; beavv; doug reed Subject: hearing before LR City Board Mayor Mark Stodola Little Rock Board of Directors The city plans to put the Col. Glenn/Minton Subdivision/Substation appeal hearing for the Board of Directors agenda on February 20, 2007, and this would be done at the February 6th agenda meeting. Some friends and family who otherwise would attend this board meeting in our support have plans on the 20th in celebration of Mardi gras, and it seems unfair to our group if even a few people are unable attend the hearing. Some legislators will be celebrating the evening at the Oyster Bar Restaurant and there will be private home parties. The Board members may desire to attend evening events. I hope you will consider Mardi gras as a sort of 'holiday' for the town. We are also concerned over the short amount of time we were given for discussion at the city Planning Commission hearing and hope to be given ample time before the Board. This issue was discussed with Mr. Carney who recommended that I make my request to you. Thank you, Sue Ann Stephens sal4075 r@i pol.bz "Fettih sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, curd Iveeires the impossible. Corrie Teti Boom 2/2/2007 Message Pagel of 2 Bozynski, Tony�j From: Carney, Dana Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:37 AM To: James, Donna; Bozynski, Tony Subject: FW: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal -----Original Message ----- From: Rena Upperman [mailto:rupperman@windstream.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:55 AM To: board Cc: 'Sue Ann Stephens'; Carney, Dana; jrlynch@ualr.edu; 'dan greenberg'; 'doug reed'; Charles.steuart@sbcglobal.net Subject: Z-7980 - Agenda Meeting Item - Entergy Utility Substation CUP Appeal Dear all: I represent Sue Ann and Howard Stephens in an ongoing boundary line dispute regarding the property adjacent on the east side of the proposed substation site. As I am sure you are aware, Entergy does not yet own the proposed site. The proposed site is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and as such, the tract Entergy wants to purchase (3.28 acres) must be formally subdivided. The purpose of the subdivision of the Minton property (the current owners) is to allow the proposed site to be conveyed to Entergy as a 3.28 -acre lot. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision and the CUP despite the ongoing lawsuit between the Mintons and the Stephens. The case is currently set for trial in Judge Timothy Fox's court on April 16, 2007 (CV -2006-13229). We have concerns that the hearings on the variances and the CUP appeal are going forward despite this pending lawsuit. We are formally requesting that the hearing on the CUP and variance matters be postponed until after the lawsuit is decided. Entergy (via the Minton lawsuit) is seeking to quiet title to a portion of property that is between a fence encroachment in my client's favor (WEST of my client's property line and on the Minton property) and my client's actual property line. There has been no reason posed as to the need for that particular strip of land, but there are setback lines that would be sufficiently less if our case is successful (e.g., the fenceline wins). There is probably a difference of about eleven feet. We are stating for the record that we believe it is unfair and preemptive to rule on issues regarding Entergy's CUP and the variances when there is disputed property involved that Entergy doesn't even own yet. Further, the Minton properties have already been conveyed back and forth between the parties in violation of the 5 -acre rule. Currently, the Minton's hold separate deeds to the lots comprising the "subdivision" that are each less than 5 acres. Finally, we are concerned that the hearing is being considered for the February 20th agenda because there are City events going on that evening due to Mardi Gras. If our request to postpone the hearing pending the outcome of the lawsuit is denied, we are requesting for the record that we be allowed ample time to speak at the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Rena Upperman, P.A. Attorney at Law Markham Heights Professional Park 10016 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 501.219.8500 1/30/2007 Message Fax: 501.219.8585 Cell: 501.240.7373 E-mail: ruu ..german@windstream.net 1/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 dwifth En teW Memorandum To: Mayor Mark Stodola Vice Mayor Hurst Entergy Customer Service Ninth & Louisiana P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Tel 501 396 4337 James E. Jones Regional Customer Service Manager Director Adcock, Director Cazort, Director Fortson, Director Hendrix, Director Keck, Director Kumpuris, Director Richardson, Director Wright, Director Wyrick From: James E. Jones, Entergy Arkansas CC: Bruce Moore, City Manager Tom Carpenter, City Attorney Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development Date: February 8, 2007 Re: Conditional Use Permit for Entergy Substation The population of Little Rock has grown significantly over the years and Entergy Arkansas, Inc.'s ("EAI") electricity delivery system has grown with it, especially in the western part of the city. To ensure that all customers continue to receive a reliable supply of electricity, EAI has selected a location for a new substation. The area selected for a new substation is west of Interstate 430 between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. Significant commercial and residential developments in this area have and continue to increase the demand for electricity. The site chosen by Entergy is one of 5 sites thoroughly reviewed. The Colonel Glenn site is preferred for the following reasons: ■ This site is located directly under an existing transmission line, thus eliminating any need to construct additional transmission lines; ■ Little, if any, additional right- of- way will be required; ■ The site is located in near proximity to the load center and growth areas; ■ The site provides access to existing electrical distribution routes to load center for improved reliability for the area to be served; ■ Overall the site is the best economical option for building a substation and associated infrastructure; ■ The site has adequate and safe access; and ■ The site will have the least impact on environment and area residents Page 2of2 Colonel Glenn Substation Resident concerns were identified through a public Open House in the neighborhood, last March 2006. EAI feels that these concerns have been fully addressed. All steps will be taken to ensure that this substation will be as safe as any of the more than 400 Entergy substations operating throughout Arkansas. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision of the property owned by certain members of the Minton family by a 10 to 0 vote. The proposed substation site is within the property to be subdivided by the Minton's. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the substation site was approved 9 to 1. Enclosed is a copy of the presentation made to the Planning Commission on May 11, 2006. Included in the presentation is a listing of neighborhood concerns and proposed remedies. In the back of the booklet, you will find a brochure mailed to all property owners within a 1/a mile of the proposed site. The Planning Commission approval has been appealed to the City Board of Directors. Two issues are before you February 20: 1. A variance request for the subdivision of the property owned by the Minton family members, for which EAI has an agreement to purchase one tract of the subdivided property. There is currently a boundary dispute involving a small portion of this property and the adjacent property lying to the east owned by Howard and Sue Ann Stephens. An action has been brought by the Minton family members in Pulaski County Circuit Court to establish this boundary and clear title to this small portion of disputed property. As part of your packet, there is a subdivision plat which accurately shows the location and dimensions of the disputed portion of the property. 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a substation to be constructed at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road EAI anticipates that this new substation needs to be in operation before the summer of 2009. The planning and construction process may take up to 24 months to complete. A separate map of the city of Little Rock is included in your packet showing the locations of other substations within the city. I look forward to answering any questions you may have either before or during the February 20`h Board meeting. I respectfully request that the opposition's appeal be denied so that this project may move forward. Sincerely, James E. Jones Enclosure PETITION TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO DENY PERMISSION TO ENTERGY ARKANSAS TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION AT 14250 COLONEL GLENN ROAD, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; WE UNDERSTAND THAT ENTERGY ARKANSAS HAS REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION ON COLONEL GLENN ROAD; AND IS PENDING APPROVAL BY THE LITTLE ROCK CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS', FURTHERMORE, THE ELECTRIC SUBSTATION WOULD BE BUILT IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, A STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 120' x 90' REQUIRING A FOUNDATION HIGHER THAN THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND CONSTRUCTED OF IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL COVERING APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF WATER THAT COLLECTS IN TYPICAL RAIN EVENTS. THIS WOULD JEOPARDIZE OUR LIVES AND PROPERTY AND THAT OF ALL SURROUNDING HOME OWNERS. WE SLJ1,';GEST THAT ENTERGY BE RL.Q�_%�RE€1 iv4..7 A L--.0FiMT10i`19-5L LETTER OF MAP REViSION WITH FEMA T 0 DETER�VJNE I'HAT 'l -HIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAU'SE NO NE(SATIVE EFFECT ON EXIS-FiNG I-1,0MECjVV3 FRS AND PERSUNIM DROP RTY OF 1—HE FLOOD PLAIN. ADDITIONALLY PETITIONERS MAY WRITE THE CITY AT: Little Rock City Hall, 500 W. Markham, Room 203, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Or email to: board@littlerock.or� Name Address Phone Date Lk) 2 J i2 z/o 4. Cp L�� 5. n r4 1 V CoI a %i, 1 ( .. 2 /,tom 71.2 i c �.z.? - 0 i -Z S 6. � a�"�1 l�1.3t'� ���a��LIG��-'•�,P-! •�%�°c�< �-; ?�1ic 1�-1���� Name r Address phone VA-,. / Y-3 q5- C,-, 1. G 4-,nr A Date dO-� ("L,, ',aa L S_ y ` le'OVIJ 4tr 17 I �• s �ti=•'� _ ice.' r: :� .rv=�^'�a�•^.�-i' 4 ••:; " �•3 4 1 "art• .'���Y}� � � 'if �37 y, QI ,if K' Y�(� •- r. 1 T ~1 4� "5J'Xl �. ..1_:t -+ � i�r~ '' i �� K• Y J •� .,'�/C ; .r• � ��t .S"i_�• •+e.'�a�:.�'�y�- 1' �'•' Ir ti's '��,y�� r. r _- , .ti. ::"• �--�:e.�; ��',:�y:-• . 7!•� �i}�li ;' ��l��k •_r..r r.. n•`� j. - -�i WV _•,�,y1—*y�i -.ate •1 • C.+_ a�C iYl� ^M �} ,1 R -`�S• yY �i.� Y4.y; •-�i s r + _ '�� � 't' �}' �:. *-Zll -2 �al." -,--1 � _ - � -, L J�+ 'l.'3•` ��"ti`_°Y� fF T.j: �. :.SKwsr�.• +��j- •�• ••� :�.•k+:' � !`.�•�_r it 'i =.•rry.`� i:r Fy's7" /=" 1 • v f. ... - _ - v� :r dj'`r'' _.'�'- vr•c- ., . � - � _ ter,!•} �:` •'r�" _ _ -."� ,. •air - _ r.�p •. �" •.Fr:. :Tti _��! ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A 115 KV DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, ALL IN LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A CERTIFICATE ORDER 3 49 Phi '07 DOCKET NO. 06-162-U ORDER NO. 5 On December 5, 2006, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI or the Company) filed a petition for a declaratoryjudgment order (hereafter declaratoryjudgment) statingthat anew 115/13.8 kilovolt (kV) substation, proposed to be built in the western part of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas,' on a 3.5 acre site, does not require a new certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN), because under Arkansas statutory lave' and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Commission)' the proposed new substation is only a "distribution" facility, as distinguished from a transmission facility, and as such does not require a new CCN for its construction and operation. Alternatively, the petition states that if the Company fails to obtain a favorable ruling on its More particularly, the preferred location of this new 115/13.8 kV substation would be approximately two miles west of Interstate Highway I-430 and between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. 2 3 Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201tb). Rule 7.02(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 2 request for a declaratoryjudgment, EAI applies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN) pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. §23-3-201 et seq. and Rule 7.04(a) of the Arkansas Public Service Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting authority to construct, operate and maintain a new 115113.8 kilovolt (kV) substation and associated distribution facilities and equipment on this proposed 3.5 acre site and connect it to an existing 115 kV electric transmission line immediately above the proposed substation site. As indicated in the first paragraph of this order and Footnote 1 thereto, this proposed substation is to be located in the western part of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, approximately two miles west of Interstate 430 between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. Order No. 2, filed March 1, 2047, scheduled a consolidated hearing on both the petition for a declaratory judgment, the alternative request for a CCN, and for the purpose of hearing public comments, on May 31, 2007, and established a procedural schedule for prefiling prepared testimony. On May 3, 2007, Order No. 3 of this docket was issued ruling on several petitions to intervene and on a motion by one set of intervenors for an indefinite continuance of the hearing set for May 31, 2007. One petition to intervene was denied because of remoteness of the location of the petitioner's property to that of the proposed substation," and one was denied because the petition contained insufficient information from which to determine the exact proximity of the petitioner's property to that of the proposed substation.' 4 This was the petition of Jeff Stephens, a resident of Cabot, Arkansas. s Thi's was the petition of Carolyn Jolley who lives nearby but how near the location of the proposed substation site was not determinable Brom the petition. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 3 Order No. 3 granted the petition to intervene of Howard and Sue Ann Stephens, husband and wife (Intervenors), who own and reside on property immediately adjacent to, and actually abutting, the proposed substation site. However, the motion of these Intervenors for a continuance of the hearing before the Commission, scheduled on May 31, 2407, because of the pendency of two lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court involving issues which these intervenors argue could impact this docket, was denied. On May 24, 2007, by Order No. 4, the renewed motion of the Intervenors for a continuance was again denied. Also, two motions of a procedural nature filed by the General Staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) were denied by Order No. 4. This case was heard as scheduled on May 31, 2007, by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Following opening statements by counsel for the three parties, EAI, Staff and the Intervenors, oral public comments were received into the record, The first person to make a public comment was Carolyn Jolley, whose petition to intervene was denied. Mrs. Jolley and her husband own property and live north of Colonel Glenn Road from the proposed substation site, which is several hundred yards south of Colonel Glenn Road. The Jolleys' driveway or entrance to their property is north off of Colonel Glenn Road. The concerns expressed by Mrs. Jolley were primarily that the location of the substation at the proposed site would exacerbate an already dangerous and annoying vehicular traffic problem at this location along Colonel Glenn Road and that a creek flowing underneath Colonel Glenn Road and across part of the Jolley property would be more apt to flood and run onto the Jolley property because of the location of the substation. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 4 The next person to offer an oral public comment was Francis Jamell, a resident and property owner on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road approximately 200 feet east ofthe proposed entrance road south off of Colonel GIenn Road leading to the proposed 3.5 acre substation site. He stated that he was in the construction business himself, and that although he knew that a new substation in western Little. Rock was needed, he believed that Entergy was underestimating its probable costs for constructing this substation and road at the proposed location by perhaps between two and three million dollars. Oral public comments were also offered by Tina Williams who owns and lives on property that fronts on Colonel Glenn Road and is immediately adjacent to and north of the proposed substation site. Ms. Williams' chief concern is the flooding problem which she fears would be exacerbated by building a substation between 200 and 300 feet behind her property. She also has concerns about increased vehicular traffic and related increased safety risks because of it if the substation is sited at the proposed location. Gary Brown made an oral public comment at the hearing. Mr. Brown lives and owns property on Lawson Road generally south and east ofthe proposed substation site. His propertyalso floods when the .nearby creek flows out of its banks in periods of heavy rain. He expressed concerns about increased flooding, oil or chemical leakage or spillage from the substation transformers and other equipment, an increased risk of fire at the substation site, and other safety hazards if the substation were to be located at the proposed site. The last person to make an oral public comment at the hearing was Cabot resident, Jeff Stephens, the son ofthe Intervenors, who was delayed in arriving at the hearing because of a conflict DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 5 with a related case also being tried that day in Pulaski County Circuit Court.6 Jeff Stephens is naturally concerned over any possible negative impact the building of the proposed substation could have on his parents' property. His chief concern was that the existing flooding problem in periods of heavy rain would be greatly exacerbated by building a substation pad several feet higher than the existing ground level on EAI's proposed site because it would inevitably cause the displacement of more water. He also expressed doubts that the cost estimate for putting the substation at this location was realistic. Several additional public comments in e-mail or written form were received into the Secretary of the Commission's office prior to the hearing. All such public comments were opposed to the siting of the substation at the proposed location. Exacerbation of the existing flooding problem and fire (from lightening strikes or other causes) were the primary reasons for the opposition. It is important to keep in mind that all of the public comments, addressing as they do, the relative desirability or undesirability of EAI's proposed site, become virtually irrelevant in this proceeding if it is found the Commission has no regulatory jurisdiction or authority over the substation's siting. It is only if EAI is required to have a CCN that the Arkansas Public Service Commission becomes called upon to determine the reasonableness or suitability of the location of the proposed substation, 6 This was a quiet title action between two groups of property owners involving a boundary line dispute in the vicinity of the proposed substation site. There apparently is, or was, a disagreement about the precise location of a boundary line, and EAI needed this resolved so it could acquire a good title to the 3.5 acre site on which it proposed to locate its substation. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 6 EAI's fust witness was George R. Bartlett, employed by an affiliate corporation of EAI, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), as the Director of Operations in ESI's Transmission Business Unit. He is an electrical engineer. Mr. Bartlett discussed at some length the electric industry's definitions of and distinctions between a transmission substation and a distribution substation. He also explained that some substations are called dual function substations because they contain elements of both transmission and distribution purposes. He discussed the industry standards and criteria for making the determination of how to classify a dual function substation as either a transmission substation or a distribution substation, In describing the distinction between transmission and distribution facilities, Mr. Bartlett stated the following: A transmission line transports energy from remote generation sites to local area electrical load centers by deliverythrough transmission lines to distribution substations. The transmission lines and related transmission facilities that operate at or above 69 kV voltage levels, historically, have been booked to transmission plant accounts and characterized as transmission assets using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC'} Uniform System of Accounts. Distribution lines move energy from distribution substations to the local area electrical loads. Based on FERC guidelines, the Companyhas classified as distribution those lines that operate at voltage. levels below 69 W. Such lines, historically, have been booked to FERC distribution plant accounts and characterized as distribution assets. A switching station is a transmission facility containing breakers and/or switches, and auto transformers in certain applications, used for interconnecting elements of the transmission system and operating at voltage levels at or above 69 W. A substation is a facility that contains voltage transformation equipment, i. e., changes electricity from transmission voltage levels to distribution voltage levels for delivery of electricity to customers.' In answer to the question whether any of the facilities he just described could be defined Hearing Transcript (Tr.), pp. 61, 62. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 7 solely as transmission or distribution assets, Mr. Bartlett answered: Yes. Transmission assets include equipment and devices that operate at 69 kV voltage levels or higher and function as part of an integrated transmission system to deliver bulk power to transmission customers and to distribution substations. Therefore, transmission lines, switching stations and substations, which serve to interconnect only transmission lines, are transmission facilities and provide benefit and support to the transmission system exclusively. Substations in this category include transmission substations. Distribution assets include equipment and devices that operate below 69 kV voltage levels or equipment and devices that are sourced by transmission lines at voltage levels of 69 kV or higher and which equipment and devices transform the transmission voltage to distribution voltage levels of less than 69 W. Therefore, distribution lines, substations and substation equipment, which serve to interconnect only distribution lines, are distribution facilities. Additionally, substations in this category include dual -function substations that are sourced by two or less transmission lines. These type facilities provide exclusive benefit and support to the distribution system.' This witness goes on to discuss so-called "dual -function substations" as substations which include both transmission and distribution elements and may benefit both the transmission and distribution system. He states that they may be classified as either transmission or distribution facilities.' Finally, when asked how the proposed substation should be classified, he answered, The Proposed Electrical Facilities exist only to serve a distribution need and will not serve to benefit the transmission system. The substation will contain less than three transmission lines and the transmission path will not be altered. The proposed Colonel Glenn Substation is connected to a single transmission line and is being constructed to serve expanding load via the distribution facilities of EAI. The only practical way to deliver energy produced at various generating facilities to the expanding load is via a substation that is connected to the transmission system and transforms the voltage to a distribution level. Tr., pp. 62,63. Tr., p. 63. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 8 The substation is properly classified as Distribution." Mr. Bartlett then discusses at some length the FERC classification system as respects transmission versus distribution facilities as well as EAI's classification criteria versus other regional transmission entities and organizations; and he states unequivocally that EAI's classification of the proposed Colonel Glenn Substation in this docket as a distribution substation is consistent with these other classification systems." Neither of the other two parties, Staffor the Intervenors, chose to cross-examine Mr. Bartlett. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did ask the witness a series of questions which elicited some elaboration of his prepared testimony which is consistent therewith. EAI called three more witnesses to testify in the presentation of its case -in -chief. They were: Steve Van Namen, an electrical engineer employed by EAI in its Distribution Asset Planning Group; Michael P. Gravolet, an engineer employed by ESI; and Marc C. Johnson, an independently employed water engineer and hydrologist. The testimony of these three witnesses, virtually all of which addresses one or more aspects of the case relevant to the need for and siting of a transmission facility where a CCN is legally required, will not be discussed in detail in this order because, as will hereinafter be discussed, it is going to be determined by this order that EAI is entitled to its declaratory judgment order in this case that a CCN is not legally required for this substation. The General Staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) called one witness in this matter, Clark D. Cotten, who is employed by the General Staff of the Commission and holds the xa Tr., p. 64. ix Tr., pp. 64-69. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 9 title of Senior Electrical Engineer. Mr. Cotten first cites the applicable statutory law, Ask. Code Ann. §23-3-201, and an applicable Commission. rule, Rule 7.02(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure [Commission RPP 7.02(b)] . He then reviews the testimony of EAI witness, George R. Bartlett, discussing the distinction between a transmission facility and a distribution facility and the factors governing the classification of each type of facility. Mr. Cotten states that it is appropriate to consider both the physical and functional characteristics of a substation facility in determining its classification; and he agrees with Mr. Bartlett's analysis and conclusion regarding the substation proposed in this docket by EAI. Mr. Cotten states: Based on the evidence presented in the [testimony] of EAI Witness Bartlett, the proposed substation facilities appear to be properly classified as distribution facilities because they provide exclusive benefit and support to the distribution system. The only transmission function being provided at this location is standard isolation and protective functions. This facility will not serve as a source for additional transmission service to other areas, or for the interconnection of one transmission network with another network.12 Mr. Cotten further points out that it is Staffs position in this docket that the declaratory order sought by EAI is "... consistent with Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 and the Commission's RPP and should be granted."13 Staff witness, Cotten, then discusses all of the considerations relevant to the alternative request made in the petition seeking a CCN, but for the reasons already mentioned this testimony will not be detailed in this order. Intervenors called five witnesses. They are: Mike Tschiemer, a professional videographer; 12 Tr., p. 230. 13 Tr., p. 230. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 10 Carl Garner, a consulting engineer; Sherman Smith, a professional engineer and land surveyor, who is the Public Works Director for Pulaski County and a certified Flood Plain Manager in the State of Arkansas; and Mrs. Sue Ann Stephens, one of the adjacent property owners and one of the Intervenors. Again, the testimony of these witnesses is not detailed in this order in the interest of brevity because it all goes to the several issues surrounding site selection which becomes relevant only in the event EAI is not entitled to a declaratory judgment order but must obtain a CCN for this proposed substation. The testimony and documentary evidence introduced by Intervenors and their witnesses goes to the issues of flooding, fire, ambient noise, potentially hazardous chemical spills, increased vehicular traffic and other safety factors, but inasmuch as it is being decided that a CCN is not legally required in this case the evidence going to these issues does not become a part of the decisional process. The basic statutory law governing new construction or operation of public utility facilities or equipment is set forth in Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201.14 Sub -part (a)(1) of this statute reads: No new construction or operation of any equipment or facilities for supplying a public service or extension thereof shall be undertaken without first obtaining from the Arkansas Public Service Commission a certificate that public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction or operation. Sub -part (b) of this statute reads; If the construction or operation has been commenced under a limited or conditional certificate or authority as provided in §§ 23-3-203-23-3-205, this section shall not be construed to require the certificate, nor shall the certificate be required for an extension 14 This is the older statute which applies to most new utility construction unless the utility facility proposed to be built is large enough to fall under the jurisdictional requirements of the newer statute, the Utility Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 923-1B-501 et seq., which is not applicable in this case. DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 11 within any municipality or district within which service has been lawfully supplied, or for any extension within, or to territory then being served, or necessary in the ordinary course. (emphasis supplied) Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a long standing Commission rule; subtitled Allocated Area, provides as follows: (a) Where the Commission has by its order authorized a public utility to serve within a municipality, territorial district, or other geographic area (hereinafter called an allocated area), such order shall be considered a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate within such allocated area all distribution facilities and equipment necessary in the ordinary course to serve all consumers, both present and future, located within such allocated area. (emphasis supplied) (b) Where a utility is lawfully supplying service within any municipality, construction or operation of any equipment or facilities or extensions thereof shall not require shall not require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or an application therefor. While the undersigned ALJ has not been cited to any Arkansas Public Service Commission orders or appellate decisions in Arkansas specifically interpreting and applying the}ust quoted statute or Commission rule in circumstances similar to the one presented by this case, and while grammatical experts might argue and debate whether certain of the language used in both the statute and the rule is as clear as might be desirable, it seems quite clear that the plain meaning of the statute and rule together is that new electric distribution facilities, such as, a distribution substation, do not require a new CCN if constructed and operated within an existing allocated area for which the Commission has previously granted a CCN. Clearly, the Commission, by the promulgation of Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure has itself interpreted Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 to except new electric facilities which are for distribution purposes only, and which are necessary in the ordinary course of providing a public service to its customers, in a previously allocated geographical area, from the DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 12 requirement of having to have a CCN from the Commission. In the case before the Commission in this docket, there is no dispute in the evidence but that the proposed Colonel Glenn Substation, at the location proposed by EAI, is only a distribution facility. Although it is proposed to be located directly underneath and connected to a 115 kV transmission line, the outgoing voltage from the substation will only be distribution level voltage. The transmission system will not benefit from this new substation, but only the distribution system in the rapidly growing west Little Rock area will benefit. The testimony of the two witnesses who testified, George R. Bartlett, for the Company, and Clark D. Cotten, for the Staff, on the question of what type of facility this proposed new substation was, whether a distribution or transmission facility, went essentially unchallenged. Each ofthem asserted their opinions that it was a distribution and not a transmission facility, both in its physical and its functional characteristics. The witnesses whose testimony addressed the factors regarding site selection, including both Company witnesses, Staff witness Cotten, and the several well-qualified witnesses for the Intervenors, raised serious and legitimate issues going to the question of how this proposed substation, if built at the proposed location, would impact the immediate vicinity, especially with respect to the exacerbation of the existing flooding problem during periods of heavy rainfall. However, as earlier stated in this order, having decided that EAI is not legally required to obtain a CCN for this substation because itis only a distribution and not a transmission facility and is to be built in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary course of its business, the Commission is powerless to exert regulatory control or authority over its placement of this substation. It simply does not have the jurisdiction, that is, the legal power, under the law to require DOCKET NO. 06-162-U PAGE 13 EAI to satisfy the criteria which govern the siting of a transmission facility. Therefore, it is unnecessary and would be purely academic to discuss in this order whether the evidence shows that EAI would be entitled to a CCN for this substation in the location proposed. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED that the petition of EAI for a declaratory judgment stating that its proposed new 115113.8 kV substation to be built in the western part of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, on a 3.5 acre site approximately two miles west of Interstate Highway 430, between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, be and is hereby, granted. Because this proposed substation is a distribution facility, as distinguished from a transmission facility, and is to be constructed in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary course of the Company's business of providing public utility service to its existing and future customers, no CCN is by law required to be obtained for it from this Commission. It is further ORDERED that the Intervenors' petition is dismissed. BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PURSUANT TO DELEGATION. This ,& ri day of September, 2007. Dltana K. Nfilson Secretary of the Commission Burl C. Ric enberry Administrative Law Judge Olt' 'i+�1t+/11!!� Ut'tl!a IS�L1Ct1 by has [1CCII so -:-1 t?!I .:[� _.:+; I!; •, t.. [' sFsin date b}• r.s. Ila; ��it.t i++�. tud+rat ti ::t sin the addre,� of i 't.i. ;};il'l_ OWL official _A 4-',tn! - i)iana K. 3son I atv lnT+' �+� t1:c t t+nuttissictn �� � 1 auc _. 19 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, RKA40A6 PM 2:43: 49 SIXTH DIVISION Pat O'Brien Pulaski Circuit/Counf� Clerk TAMMY McCLAIN, TINA WILLIAMS, FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUCY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS, HOWARD STEPHENS and EMMA SUE THOMPSON PLAINTIFFS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. & MINTON, LLC CASE NO. CV -2007-3969 ANSWER DEFENDANTS Comes Separate Defendant, City of Little Rock ("City"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney, and Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, and for its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, states: 1. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 2. The City admits that it is a municipality in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 3. The City admits that the City of Little Rock Board of Directors took action on File No. Z-7980 and on File No. S-1518 on February 20, 2007. The City denies the remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 5. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 6. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 7. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 8. The City admits that the property that is the subject of this action is not located in the Little Rock city limits but is located in the five (5) mile extra -territorial jurisdiction of the City of Little Rock and is zoned as R-2. The City denies the remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. The City affirmatively states pursuant to the City's zoning code, a utility substation may be permitted in all zoning classifications by conditional use permit. 9. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12. The City admits that on or about April 22, 2006, the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission noted that an illegal subdivision of the property had occurred. The City affirmatively states that City staff informed the applicant that a plat needed to be filed to address this issue. The City admits that on or about April 22, 2006, no plat had been filed. The City denies the remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. The City admits that on or about April 22, 2006, the applicant requested deferral of consideration of the conditional use permit application in order to file the plat. The City is -2- Y without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 14. The City admits the allegation in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint that the subdivision plat was filed. The City admits that the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to permit an electric substation to be constructed and approved requested variances and deferrals from certain subdivision requirements. The City denies the remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. The City admits that Howard and Sue Ann Stephens appealed the action of the Planning Commission in approving the conditional use permit and the approval of variances from the subdivision ordinance. The City denies the remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 17. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 18. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 19. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. -3- 20. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and affirmatively states that there has been a valid subdivision approval by the City. 22. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23. The City is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 24. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. The City affirmatively state that any claim Plaintiffs are attempting to assert pursuant to the just compensation clause of the United States or Arkansas constitutions is not ripe for adjudication. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted and any claim regarding diminished property values should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 25. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. The City affirmatively states that the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ARCA") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide redress for the violation by a state actor of rights secured by the United States or Arkansas constitutions or federal law. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state facts upon which relief be granted under the ARCA or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Plaintiffs' causes of action alleging violation of the ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 28. The City acknowledges Plaintiffs' request for a jury trial. 29. Paragraph 29 of the Complaint does not contain any factual allegations that the City can either admit or deny. 30. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and affirmatively states that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the relief requested against the City. 31. The City denies each. and every allegation contained in the Complaint not specifically admitted herein. 32. The City reserves the right to amend its answer upon the discovery of new or additional information. WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant City of Little Rock prays that the Complaint against it be dismissed; and for all other just and proper relief to which the City may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted: Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: A0my Becket ields (89058) Deputy City Attorney City Hall — Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon G. Randolph "Randy" Satterfield, Satterfield Law Firm, PLC, P.O. Box 1010, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72203; Webster Darling, Entergy Services, Inc., P.O. Box 551, Little Rock, .Arkansas, 72203-0551; and John Tull, Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, 111 Center Street, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this L --stay of April, 2007. &y - Fields -5- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTYFILED SIXTH DIVISION K*W§6 PM 2' `1`1' 06 en TAMMY McCLAIN, TINA WILLIAMS, Pular ki Ci rail t/Coon N Cl erk FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUCY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS, HOWARD STEPHENS and EMMA SUE THOMPSON PLAINTIFFS VS. CASE NO. CV -2007-3969 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. & MINTON, LLC DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO ARK. R. CIV. P.12 Comes Separate Defendant, City of Little Rock ("City"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney, and Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, and for its Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), states: 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 22, 2007, challenging the action of the City's Board of Directors ("Board") in File No. Z-7980, which approved a conditional use permit authorizing construction by Separate Defendant Entergy Arkansas, Inc., of an electrical substation. Plaintiffs also challenge the Board's action in File No. S-1518, which approved certain variances from the subdivision ordinance with respect to the property that is the subject of this action. 2. In Paragraph 3 of their Complaint, Plaintiffs state that this action is an appeal of the City's actions. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 provides for appeals of administrative and quasi-judicial actions taken pursuant to planning and zoning regulations. To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek de novo review pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 of the Board's actions with respect to the property that is the subject of this litigation, the City is not asserting in this motion that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 3. However, Plaintiffs also assert that the City has violated the provisions of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ARCA"), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105, et. seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs have failed to state facts for which relief can be granted pursuant to either the ARCA or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the causes of action asserted pursuant to those statutes should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 4. The ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide redress for the violation by a state actor of rights secured by the United States or Arkansas constitutions or federal law. The only allegation in the Complaint that arguably gives rise to a constitutional violation is Plaintiffs' allegation in Paragraph 24 of their Complaint that their property values have been diminished without compensation. 5. Arkansas' inverse condemnation statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-102, provides an exclusive remedy for a claim that property has been taken without just compensation. Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state facts for which relief can be granted pursuant to the ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any cause of action based upon those statutes should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 6. Plaintiffs fail to state facts for which relief can be granted as against the City with respect to their claim that their property values have been diminished without just compensation. The actions that the Plaintiffs complain of are the subject of this appeal and there has been no final determination as to those issues. Any claim that there has been a taking without just compensation is not ripe for adjudication and should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). WR WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant, City of Little Rock, prays that Plaintiffs' causes of action and claims brought pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed; and for all other just and proper relief to which the City may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted: Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: Amy Bec Fields((8058) Deputy City Attorney City Hall — Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 CERTIFTCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon G. Randolph "Randy" Satterfield, Satterfield Law Firm, PLC, P.O. Box 1010, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72203; Webster Darling, Entergy Services, Inc., P.O. Box 551, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72243-0551; and John Tull, Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, 111 Center Street, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this ) (¢-y of April, 2007. • : - r -3- ti IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, A -W -04§M 2:44:'55 SIXTH DIVISION Pat O'Brien Mash Ci rri{i i�,�Cni�ntu Clerk TAMMY McCLAIN, TINA WILLIAMS, FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUCY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS, HOWARD STEPHENS and EMMA SUE THOMPSON PLAINTIFFS VS. CASE NO. CV -2007-3969 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. & MINTON, LLC DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO ARK. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) In their Complaint, filed on March 22, 2007, Plaintiffs allege that they are property owners of property that is in the vicinity of the land that is the subject of this action. The property that is the subject of this action is a parcel of property on which Separate Defendant Entergy Arkansas, Inc., intends to construct an electrical substation. Plaintiffs state that their action is an appeal of the actions taken by the Board of Directors ("Board") of Separate Defendant City of Little Rock ("City") with respect to this property. The Complaint references File Number Z-7980 and File Number 1518 (the actual file number of S-1518). While the Complaint does not specifically state the actions taken by the Board, the City acknowledges that the allegations in the Complaint, as well as the record of the minutes of the City Board meeting that Plaintiffs filed on April 11, 2007, establish that Plaintiffs take issue with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and certain variances and deferrals of the City's subdivision ordinance with respect to the subject property. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 provides for an appeal to Circuit Court of administrative and quasi-judicial actions taken pursuant to planning and zoning regulations. In this motion, the City is not requesting dismissal of the appeal of the Board's actions on February 20, 2007. Plaintiffs also assert that the City has violated the provisions of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ARCA"), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105, et. seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The ARCA provides in pertinent part: (a) Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of this state or any of its political subdivisions subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Arkansas Constitution shall be liable to the party injured in an action in circuit court for legal and equitable relief or other proper redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory of the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress... While Plaintiffs contend that the City has violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is well settled that "section 1983 creates no substantive rights; that it is merely a vehicle for seeking a federal remedy for violations of federally protected rights." Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1012 (8th Cir. 1999). While the City has been unable to locate any Arkansas cases with similar language regarding the ARCA, it should be noted that when construing the ARCA, "a court may look for guidance to state and federal decisions interpreting the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended and codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..." Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105. Thus, the ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 do not create any substantive rights which may be violated, but are merely the means by which a plaintiff can seek redress for violations of the Arkansas Constitution, the United States Constitution, or federal statutory law. -2- r Because the ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide redress for constitutional violations, the City has examined the Complaint to determine whether Plaintiffs have asserted factual allegations of a violation of either the Arkansas or United States constitutions. There are no express allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint that the City has violated a specific state or federal constitutional provision. The only allegation that implicates constitutional law is Plaintiffs' allegation in Paragraph 24 of their Complaint that their property values have been diminished without compensation. Before a property owner may maintain a claim for a constitutional violation of the just compensation clause, he must first pursue state remedies for compensation. If a state provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 195-97 (1985). The Arkansas Supreme Court has also recognized that state law remedies must first be exhausted before a property owner can make a constitutional claim. [I]t is well settled law that a property owner, "[h]as not suffered a violation of the just compensation clause until the owner has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures provided by the State for obtaining such compensation." Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1985); Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 609 (8th Cir. 1986). When the state provides an adequate process for obtaining compensation, no Fifth Amendment violation occurs until after the compensation is denied. McKenzie v. City of White Hall, 112 F.3d 313, 317 (8th Cir. 1997). Ingram v. City of Pine Bluff, 355 Ark. 129, 137, 133 S.W.3d 382, 387 (2003). In Ingram, the Court recognized that Arkansas has authorized a cause of action, specifically an inverse condemnation action pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-102, for property owners to obtain compensation for the taking of private property without just compensation. Id. -3- The same legal principles were also expressed in Collier v. City of Springdale, 733 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1984) and Roy v. City of Little Rock, 902 F.Supp. 871 (E.D. Ark. 1995). In both of those cases, actions brought pursuant ,to Section 1983 in which property owners claimed a violation of the just compensation clause were dismissed because the plaintiffs had not exhausted their state law remedies. The City has not been able to locate any Arkansas cases that address whether the same principle applies to constitutional claims for denial of just compensation brought pursuant to the ARCA. However, the City submits that it is appropriate for this court to look for guidance to state and federal decisions interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and find that Plaintiffs' claim under the ARCA is also precluded. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to the ARCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and those causes of action should be dismissed. In order to maintain a constitutional claim for violation of the just compensation clause, Plaintiffs must first exhaust their state law remedies by bringing in inverse condemnation action. If the Plaintiffs attempt to claim that they have in fact asserted an inverse condemnation cause of action in Paragraph 24 of their Complaint, such a cause of action should also be dismissed for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. The time for bringing an inverse condemnation action is not ripe. Even if Plaintiffs are attempting to make a claim that there has been some type of regulatory taking without just compensation, the very actions that the Plaintiffs complain of (namely, granting a conditional use permit and approving variances and deferrals of the subdivision ordinance) are the subject of the appeal in this case and no final determination has been made. Until such time as Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies, there is no factual basis for Plaintiff's assertion that their property values have been diminished without compensation. ME The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the appropriate remedy when a party feels aggrieved by the administrative or quasi-judicial application of a municipality's zoning code. The Court has consistently held that the appropriate remedy is appeal pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425, and not some other cause of action. See, e.g., City of Paragould v. Leath, 266 Ark. 390, 583 S.W.2d 76 (1979), Douglas v. City of Cabot, 347 Ark. 1, 59 S.W.3d 430 (2001), Board of Zoning Adjustment v. Cheek, 328 Ark. 18, 942 S.W.2d 821 (1997), Green V. City of Jacksonville, 357 Ark. 517, 182 S.W.3d 124 (2004). Plaintiffs' appeal is the only action against the City that is properly before this Court. Based upon the foregoing, the causes of action asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ARCA should be dismissed for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, if the Court determines that Plaintiffs have asserted an inverse condemnation cause of action pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-102, that cause of action should also be dismissed for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. Respectfully Submitted: Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: Agmy ds (89058) Deputy City Attorney City Hall — Suite 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon G. Randolph "Randy" Satterfield, Satterfield Law Firm, PLC, P.O. Box 1010, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72203; Webster Darling, Entergy Services, Inc., P.O. Bax 551, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72203-0551; and John Tull, Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, 111 Center Street, Suite900, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this �y of April, 2007. lulls Q' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Little Rock, Arkansas MEMORANDUM TO: Dana Carney Zoning and Subdivision Manager FROM: Amy Beckman Fields/ ` Deputy City Attorney{_.. RE: Tammy McClain, et. al. v City of Little Rock, et, aL Pulaski County Circuit No. CV -2007-3969 DATE: April 10, 2007 As we discussed by phone today, I have enclosed a copy of the Complaint in the above - referenced case. Our answer is due on or before Tuesday, April 17. Since you will be out of town, I'll go ahead and file the answer based on the information in the file. I'm looking forward to working with you on this case. If you have any questions, please let me know. ABF:dab Encl. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION TAMMY MCLAIN, TINA WILLIAMS, FAITHANN GLIDDEN, MICHAEL L. GLIDDEN, GARY W. BROWN, DIANE DAVIS, TRUDY CAMPBELL, MARILYNN M. BAEYENS, ROY R. JOLLEY, MICHAEL ROMAN, NANCY ROMAN, SUE ANN STEPHENS and HOWARD STEPHENS; and EMMA SUE THOMPSON VS. No C\1 o'I 396 9 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. & MINTON, LLC COMPLAINT PLAINTIFFS FTIF[) 29-U7 Maar 22Pm4:10:18 Pat ;+Brien nu erk DEFENDANTS Comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Randy Satterfield, Satterfield Law Firm, PLC, and for their Complaint against the Defendant state: 1. That plaintiffs are individual property owners of property that adjoins or is in the vicinity of the land which is the subject matter of this action, and all plaintiffs are residents of Pulaski County, Arkansas, outside the city limits of Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. That the defendant City of Little Rock, is a municipality in Pulaski County, Arkansas. That Defendant Entergy Arkansas, Inc., (hereinafter "Entergy") is a for profit business entity in the business of generating, selling and distributing electricity to businesses, citizens, and governments located in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Defendant Minton, LLC, is the landowner who is attempting to develop a subdivision for the sole purpose of selling a lot to Entergy for construction of an electrical substation. 3. This is an appeal of the defendant City of Little Rock's action taken in city file number Z7980 and the final February 20, 2007, board of directors' action in file number 1518 which consolidated both files, and other legal causes of action, all related to the same transaction and occurrence. This Court has venue, personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this action. 4. That in 2005, Entergy began searching for land to construct a new electrical substation, the first of such by Entergy in this area in approximately 30 years. 5. Sometime before December 22, 2005, Entergy submitted to the Minton Family, former property owners, a proposal to purchase a 3.5 acre portion of a 7.8 acre tract of land at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road, in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 6. This land was formerly a part of an old dairy farm previously owned by the Minton Family, who are the plaintiffs' neighbors, and is located on a tributary of McHenry Creek, and in a floodplain. 7. The total parcel consists of a 7.8 acre tract with frontage Colonel Glenn Road in Pulaski County, and is adjacent to, or in the same neighborhood area of all the plaintiffs. 8. The acreage is not located in the Little Rock city limits but is located in the five (5) mile extra -territorial jurisdiction of the City of Little Rock, has a rural wooded and pastureland setting, and zoned by the City of Little Rock as an "R-2, Residential single family" zoning classification which prohibits the use of the property as a utility substation which has an industrial use classification. 9. That before any portion of this land could be used for an industrial use, the property would have to be either rezoned or a conditional use permit approved by the city. 10. That on December 22, 2005, and on January 9, 2006; the city's minutes reflect that defendant Entergy, presumably acting on behalf of the landowner/applicant, requested deferrals for approval of a previously filed request for a Conditional Use Permit, with the subdivision committee of the planning commission for the City of Little Rock. On January 19, 2006, the matter was again deferred because the applicant did not appear. 11. That at the time of the above deferrals, no subdivision had yet been applied for, nor plat filed by the land owner,, and none had been recommended by the planning commission nor approved by the City of Little Rock. 12. That on April 22, 2006, the planning commission minutes reflect that certain requirements must be accomplished by the landowners before any consideration of the conditional use permit, including a flood plain development permit required by the county, and noted that what had occurred was an illegal subdivision by the land owners and Entergy and that no plat had been filed. 13. That on April 22, 2006, the landowners and Entergy again asked to defer the conditional use permit and be given time to file a plat reflecting lots and boundaries of the illegal subdivision, and those boundary lines are presently in separate litigation.. 14. That subdivision plat was apparently filed, and never obtained any approval from the county nor was there any flood plain development permit issued. Nevertheless, on May 11, 2006, the planning commission approved the conditional use permit on one of the lots in the subdivided land, to permit an industrial substation to be installed in an illegal residential subdivision, and approved all requested variances or deferments from the usual improvements set -forth in the city's subdivision requirements ordinances. 15. That Plaintiff's Howard and Sue Ann Stephens filed an appeal of the action of the planning commission in approving the conditional use permit, approving variances s from multiple subdivision requirements, and the de facto approval of the illegal subdivision by acquiescence. (See attached Exhibit 1— Notice of Appeal to City Board by Plaintiff Stephens). 16. The lot Entergy proposes to purchase is Lot 3 of a three lot subdivision of a 7.8 acre tract of land now owned by an entity known as "Minton, LLC"; more particularly described in the attached proposed plat. (See attached Exhibit 2 — Proposed Plat). 17. That Entergy chose the site over five (5) other sites, including an abandoned - rock quarry site that is approximately 6/1 Oths. of a mile away and on land which has an "Industrial" zoning classification which would allow a substation land use as a matter of right under defendant City of Little Rock's zoning law. 18. Entergy's representative at the board meeting appeal on 2/20/07 stated that other sites would cost more money that would be passed along to electric customers. 19. This statement was contrary to Entergy's petition, filed on 12/5/06, at page 12, docket 06-162-U, with the Arkansas Public Service Commission which states that "EAI, will finance the construction with funds available from various sources, including retained.earnings, debt, and capital securities. No other alternative financing methods are considered appropriate at this time", which is consistent with the recent disclosure in the Arkansas Democrat business section, on 3/21/07, that Entergy paid its CEO in excess of $15.5 million for his 2006 salary. 20. The illegal subdivision is contrary to other provisions of the City of Little Rock's subdivision ordinances that require street improvements, fire protection, traffic, drainage and flooding studies that are commonly associated with subdivision development requirements. 21. That the defendants are acting as if there has been a valid subdivision approval by the city, which ignores the City of Little Rock's own subdivision, zoning, and conditional use permit requirements. 22. That the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm by increased flood hazard, fire, and traffic hazards should this project continue. 23. There have been no independent noise studies, no traffic study, and no flood - storm water control study, except for an engineering and geologist study provided by the plaintiffs, which evidenced an increased flood potential. 24. That the plaintiffs' property values have been diminished without compensation by the defendants' actions. 25. That the above actions of the defendant city are arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious, and violate the provisions of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act codified in A.C.A. 16-123-105 et seq., and 42 USC Section 1983. 28. That the plaintiffs request a jury trial. 29. That the plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their pleading after discovery within the rules of the Arkansas. Rules of Civil Procedure. 30. That the plaintiffs are entitled to the following relief: a. A temporary and permanent injunction, enjoining the Defendants from further action in conveying, developing, or otherwise going forward with this project as it relates to the proposed substation on lot 3 of the subdivision; b. Damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 each, to be proven at trial; and c. For attorney fees and costs in this action. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for the injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney fees, a jury trial, and any and all other just and proper relief to which they are entitled. Respectfully submitted: SATTERFIELD LAW FIRM, PLC Attorneys for the Plaintiff P:O. Box 1010 721 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 772203 Tele: (501) 37 By: •r� f � G. Randolph "Randy" Satterfield Arkansas Bar No: 81140 June 7, 2006 Mayor Jiro Dailey Little Rock City Board of Directors % City Clerk, City Ball 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Appesi Zoning Case File No. 7-7980 We are regoestiag an appeal of the May 11, 2006, decision by the Little Rock Plansiing Commission for a residential subdivision and conditional use permit at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. It is our belief Chat the approved use is not compatible:with a ,sidentW neigbborhood- For more Mau 15 years this area has been designated and protected with a residential zoning. Families have moved to this scenic valley and settled in their homes wb"e testing the city regulations will protect tbtm from commercial sad industrial ew"Ocbxteat. It should be obvious to a*yone that an electric substation near these homes wfll lower the quality of life, devalue the residential investments, cause wAse, light and visual pollution re" in alditiois, unregulated traffic to the detriment of every family who lives in the area. It is our understanding that engineers at Entergy are mRsure what will hpppen to the hand surrovading the 358 sere site w bee 1-2 acres of impervious maternal is used to beild-rep a substation foandation since the acreage is in the hal yr. floodplain. There is a stream and a res and the stream, being a Significant which add to our conce spring ore the property tributary to McHenry Creek, has never undergone a flood study. It is a certainty to all who have whaeasd floods of this area in tic past that this woWki be a catastrophe waiting to happen. We appreciate your serious consideration to this request for an appeaL Yours truly, Howard and Sae Ano Stephens, Property Owners at 14075 Colonel Glum Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Enclosure Cc_ Daoa Carney, Mgr. Zoning Division EXHIBIT 1