That's fine.
Um,
okay.
Be better. This weekend is brutal, man. I thought whatever.
We're not the like only thing. Yeah.
Because they all, they're like paying.
Yeah. Have 'em show up. S**t.
I'm gonna go see if they cut off public.
Oh, okay. He says, uh,
yeah,
yeah.
Just back. Yeah, exactly. Oh my god. So awkward.
Thanks Patrick. Okay.
Five one.
Hey,
Going Go have a damn bottle.
Go straight.
Well, uh, let's say by the time you, so, so we have
to do the subject matter grade first
so all the folks get out.
Oh. So then you'll probably just pick to like
for the first microphone and then
either Nicole will work the presentation
or she'll give it to you.
Okay. Nicole. Hey Nicole, how many slides do you have? Six.
Do will you do the slide changes?
Have the clicker. I can give you guys the clicker, right?
Your show. Um,
So then go you So take the clicker.
Yes. Nice to you, Tammy. So you'll
Probably go back because then,
then you'll have time.
You get up, you'll have two landmark designations,
two fee waivers, and it goes the signs.
So if you're listening, probably building.
Oh, minute. Yeah. Okay.
So you don't have to sit here
if you don't want, you don't wanna sit here
Of that.
Whoever heard of
like,
then they get to,
And then there's probably gonna be
15 minutes worth of stuff before you.
15 minutes, minutes of stuff for you guys.
She put five minutes. Sounds good.
Yeah. Um, yeah. As soon as I log in, I'll start one. Okay.
I changed, I had to,
I had to change my password
and I let the password manager do it.
And there's way too many punctuations.
They keep your job saying I incorrect.
Oh, look at me.
I changed my password.
I not on the network, not locked out,
but I think it's not gonna
city network, you know?
Yeah,
No, I'm good. 'cause I'm gonna have
to,
It's like a, I guess it'll help me cover up my phone.
Hey, good morning. Good. How you I'm good, how are you?
Good. Good to see you again. Remember Emily?
She's in charge of our IGA. Oh, nice. No, no, no, no.
But hi. I think good, good, good.
So I want to, it's kind of hard to like, have us all on,
um, Hey, Gabby and Jar.
Hey Gabby and Jared, can we huddle here really quick?
So, because we're gonna adjust our presentation.
You want Gabby too? Yeah. Want me to send photo?
No. Okay. You know what? Yes, of course, of course.
So we, we will wait for that.
Alright folks. Yeah, we gotta huddle. Oh,
now I'm still Okay.
Thank you. So we're gonna
adjust, start presentation a little bit so that um, Ms.
Cheryl here can say a few words on the record.
I do wanna think about the best way to like, integrate
that into our presentation.
Um, so the first few slides, you know,
we have our title slide
and then we have a slide that you'll present Jackie,
that kind of talks a bit about like the history
of these Johnson and everything.
Maybe after you give that slide, you can turn, Cheryl, what
that feels right to you.
And you could give, we really need to keep it brief though.
'cause we're gonna work it into like the whole slide deck.
Okay. Maybe just like a minute or two speaking to,
because the gist of that slide is like
the history of the ordinance.
It's important what tj right?
Yeah. It's more technical if anything.
So I think you should speak on what it means to,
so maybe hers turn into Sherry
and then you get into the stuff just to like set the tone.
Good morning. Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Uh, committee on zoning landmarks
and building standards is called to order.
Uh, we will start with the roll call.
Alman Theta, Alman Hopkins, almond do
Alman Hall, Alman Harris Almond Beal,
Alman Ramirez, Alman Moore,
almond Mosley Lopez.
Online Chairman. Gotcha. We'll come back.
Uh, al person Fuentes Alman Burnett
Alman Cruz Almond Conway.
Alman Quesada Alman Viegas Alman Riley
Alman Kon Alman McClay Vice Chair Lawson is present.
We have a quorum. Um, alderman Moore
has requested to attend this meeting
by remote means under provisions of Rule 59.
Uh, alderman Conway makes a motion
to approve Alderman Moore's request.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
P The chair, the ayes have it. Moving on.
I'll now read the items to be deferred.
I'll read the page number and the description
and then take a motion for all at the end.
On the top of page seven, file number 2 2 9 0 1
for the address commonly known as 37 35
through 37 37 West Belmont.
And then both items on page 11, including 2 2 9 0 4
for the address commonly known as 1738
through 1740 West Division Street
and 2 2 8 9 4 found on West Lawrence, north Laramie
and North Avondale.
Uh, all the woman Harris makes a motion defer
the previously listed items.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay P Chair.
The ayes have and the items are deferred.
Uh, just a little housekeeping
before we get to public comment.
Um, because we are in the budget chamber, uh,
we are only allowing the older people
and city employees on the floor.
Um, all members of the public will be in the gallery
and private attorneys, when we get to that point
of the meeting, will speak from the front row,
um, of the gallery.
Just to the side of the public comment, Mike.
Um, so bear with us while we, we do this.
We're supposed to be in 2 0 1 A
and we knew we wouldn't fit, so this
is quite a little bit better.
We've been joined by all the woman doll for purposes
of quorum, um, just as well.
And Alderman Beal. Um, we're going to start off
with public comment, then we will have the subject matter
hearing on the Hazel Johnson cumulative impact ordinance.
My intention is to wrap that by noon, if not before,
and then we'll move into the regular order of business.
Got it. Alright. So at this time we'll begin the public
comment period in accordance
with city council rules of order and procedure.
Public comment will be limited
to 30 minutes since there are more than 15 speakers.
Uh, public account will be limited
to two minutes per person,
and speakers will be chosen
by lottery committee on zoning will call
as many speakers as time allows.
All right,
bunch.
All right. First up, Carl Gutierrez, who will be followed
by George Blake forum.
It's just the luck of the draw.
I'm gonna Proceed.
Thank you. Um, I'm gonna do some shotgun editing
because of the, uh, one minute cut.
But my, uh, good morning Chair
Lawson, members of the committee.
My name is Carl Gutierrez, speaking on behalf
of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce,
which represents over 1000 members
of all sizes sectors across the city.
I'm here to respectfully
but strongly voice our opposition
to the ordinance based on the latest language we have
been provided by the administration.
While, while intended, the language introduces numerous
structural and operational challenges
that would significantly disrupt the city's business
operations and workforce environment create oversight,
disconnected from the health and environmental outcomes
and heavily discouraged
industry critical to our city's operations.
From maintaining a presence within the city list goes on,
taken together based on the latest language
provided to us from the administration.
This would discourage businesses from operating in Chicago
and in some cases could lead to the cessation
of operations altogether.
These businesses include, uh,
critical resources whose location within the city is vital
to maintaining essential operations such
as emergency water maintenance and road repair.
The latest language we receive from the administration also
represents an unfunded mandate for Chicago,
as it carries new administration
and enforcement requirements within the corresponding
dedicate without corresponding dedicated funding
amidst a current fiscal crisis.
However, there is additional challenge to this issue,
and that is the process itself.
Throughout my remarks, I've referenced the latest language
provided to us from the administration.
Our engagement with the department environment has been
nothing but professional and informative and personal.
Shout out to Gabby, or, uh, bearing with my questions
and a hearing out our concerns,
however, learned over the weekend
that there is a parallel special ordinance
or, um, sub, uh, substitute ordinance, excuse me,
from another part of the administration,
which was never re which we
never received from the administration.
This misalignment only serves to confuse the process,
making it fundamentally impossible to know
what we should be reviewing
and what we shouldn't be, who within the administration we
should be engaged with and who we shouldn't be.
And the ultimate consequence is to protract this process,
allowing, uh, to persist whatever
collective problems we hope to address.
I'll close by echoing
what we shared in the letter distributed
to the committee members in advance in the meeting meeting.
That is first, thank you for your decision
to hold on moving forward with this ordinance, which
Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
Uh, we'll have George Blakemore, who will be followed
by Mar Georges
Citizens.
This is the notorious zoning committee headed by LIC
crime case in the city of Chicago.
This man had committed a crime
and he will spend no time what
he snitched on the others.
He will do no time the zoning committee.
You can zone anything you want in the city of Chicago
in the 1500 block on Dearborn.
I used to live at 1300 block, a little irregular lot
that you can't bill on money talks and bull walks.
You can zone anything you want anytime you want
if you pay to play.
You heard me if you pay to play,
this is corruption here.
It's fraud here. It's, it's it's un-American here.
And the reason they can get away with this is
because you, you, you, you, you, you, all of you,
all of you just don't feed up
on the Altman.
Look in the mirror.
You deserve the government you get
and you get the government you deserve.
Who would have a meeting of such a importance
at am in the morning,
but you should have this in the afternoon,
whether working poor can attend a pay to play zoning.
Zoning. We have a, a historical building,
the Rico and,
and this lady right over here, Michelle, uh, you got
to pay her to play.
So the corruption and
Thank you Mr. Blakemore. Next.
Next up. Mar Georges will be followed by Ann began. Wilson.
Oh, here, just a sec. Try it again.
Good morning chair and members of the committee.
My name is Mara Georges
and I'd like to take two minutes of your time
to discuss the third item on today's agenda.
Landmarking of the banker's building at 1 0 5 West Adams.
The building has two owners.
One owner owns the office portion of the building
and one owner owns the hotel portion of the building.
I represent the lender to the hotel portion of the building
who is coming into ownership through a foreclosure sale
while the lender isn't per se opposed
to landmarking of the building.
The lender is concerned that
because of an ordinance, the council passed in July
of this year, the lender will no longer have the typical
rights of an owner once landmarking occurs.
Please let me explain.
On July 16th, 2025, the council passed an ordinance
substitute ordinance
20 25 0 0 1 8 1 8 9.
And I have copies if anyone would like them,
that tramples the rights of the hotel owner,
the conversion the office owner is planning
with The assistance of city TIFF funds would normally
require a mandatory PD plan development due to the number
of units contemplated
because of the ordinance, to which I'm referring landmarking
of this building will allow the office owner to proceed
without a pd and
therefore the hotel owner will not have to give its consent
or authorization to the rehabilitation
of the building in which it has an ownership interest.
As a result, I respectfully request that the landmarking
of the bankers be building be paused to allow time
for the office owner
and the hotel owner
to discuss their respective interests in the building
before giving a green light to the office owner to proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you Ms. Georges.
Uh, next is Anne began Wilson, who will be followed by
Marissa wife.
Uh, good morning. Uh, thank you for your time.
My name is Anne, began Wilson, I'm president
and owner of Began Paving Company
and Ogden Avenue Materials, an asphalt paving contractor
and asphalt producer in the city.
We are a woman-owned business
who graduated from the MWBE program in 20, uh, 2 0 0 9.
We produce asphalt for the city
of Chicago under their commodity contract, as well as
for began paving company
and other contractors under various construction contracts
for the city of Chicago.
Both CDOT and water management began.
Paving Company is a fourth generation business,
which is 118 years old This year.
Den Avenue materials has been operating in PMD number two
for over 28 years.
Between began paving company and Ogden
and new materials, we employ 70, 70 people, 60%
of whom are city residents.
We are continually upgrading our plant
to improve our operations.
We have been well below our IEPA approved emissions levels,
and we recently added additional environmental controls, um,
over and above what is required by IPEA for the, um,
based on our hot mix contract and our hot mix asphalt plan.
We are opposed to the cumulative, um,
impact ordinance since it does little
to improve environmental conditions,
but instead makes opening
and operating an industrial business in the city of Chicago,
more expensive and undesirable.
It is also more expensive for the city
to pur purchase asphalt for.
Its in-House city cruise.
The last bids for the city con, um,
commodity contract from the closest suburban asphalt plant,
which was in Franklin Park were 19
and 20% higher than the lowest bidder.
Um, it is in this, in this, um, age of, uh, budget area
that we think that the, the additional cost, um,
to the city should be strongly
considered. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Um, we've been joined
by Alderman Knutson for purposes of quorum.
Uh, next up it was Marissa, I believe it's wife
who will be followed by Ayana Simba.
Thank you and Good morning,
uh, chairman and council members.
My name is Marissa Vith
and I serve as the Executive Director of the Association
of Subcontractors
and Affiliates of Chicago, also known as A SAC.
We represent more than 350 subcontractor companies across
all trades who work on projects in Chicago.
While the ordinances well-intentioned,
we are concerned about the numerous structural
and operational challenges
that would significantly di disrupt business operations
and strongly deter vital industries from maintaining
or seeking a presence in Chicago
to start implementing an oversight board
with such a sweeping and extensive mandate composed
of individuals with no subject matter expertise would create
further uncertainty for businesses
subject to their oversight.
More time and input is needed to ensure that the goals
of the ordinance are properly informed
and structured, while ideally minimizing unnecessary
burdens to businesses.
We also feel that the impact study should call
for clear more informed objectives with a less costly
and time consuming process.
A SAC regularly hears from members about the delayed
permitting process, which then leads
to delays in development
and operations across multiple sectors.
Furthermore, the proposed changes
regarding special use permit conversion would further
generate uncertainty and unnecessary administrative
burden for businesses.
A SAC actively supports companies that seek a positive
and longstanding business relationship with the city.
We are concerned that this ordinance as drafted,
will determine manufacturers from locating in Chicago.
This ordinance as drafted,
represents another unfunded mandate
for businesses in Chicago tax payers
and is counterproductive during a time of fiscal strait.
We urge you to consider holding this ordinance
so its proponents have time to engage with stakeholders
and craft legislation that avoids unintended
and unnecessary damaging impacts to the city
and to businesses who provide vital services
to its critical infrastructure operations.
Thank you. Um, Ms.
We, uh, up next is Ayanna Simba,
who'll be followed by Dwight Curtis.
Thank you. Good morning committee.
Uh, my name is Ayanna Simba
and I'm here to comment on behalf
of Illinois Environmental Council
as their city government affairs Director.
IEC represents over 130 environmental organizations across
the city, including many that are here,
the Chicago Environmental Justice Network,
and many others that are working
to strengthen environmental
justice policies here in Chicago.
For decades, Chicago has allowed heavy industry
to concentrate in the most vulnerable communities,
putting the health and wellbeing of residents at risk,
or in other words, creating sacrifice zones.
After years of environmental injustice,
we finally have a pathway forward.
The Hazel m Johnson Cumulative Impact Ordinance.
This ordinance would require new industrial projects
to consider and report their total impact, require them
to hear from the community
and establish an environmental justice advisory board.
Let me make this clear. With this ordinance does not do,
it does not take any power away from c and Alderman.
It does not ban industry and it does not vary.
Developers in red tape advocates have worked hard with labor
and industry over the last few months to come
to an agreement on language.
And we believe we are close to that
and we believe we're close to an ordinance
that will safeguard public health while also allowing
Chicago's economy to progress.
Finally, I wanna highlight the urgency of this moment.
Federal government's upending decades old environmental laws
stepping back from civil rights agreements
and actively rescinding environmental justice funding.
It is the duty of the city, Chicago City Council
to push back against these rollbacks
and ensure environmental protection at the local level.
All Chicagoans have the right to clean air, clean water,
safe soil in a say in what gets built in their backyard.
It is us it is time for us to protect every neighborhood,
not just the wealthy few.
I urge the committee today to hear all perspectives
and ultimately support the Hazel m Johnson
cumulative Impact Ordinance. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Ms. Simba. Next
up, uh, Dwight Curtis, who will be followed by David Austin.
Good morning. Morning.
I live in the city of Chicago
and thus I have a vested interest in
the success of our city.
Success requires jobs, affordable housing, quality
of life in a sustainable tax base.
Business is required for success.
I am not against the Hazel Johnson
Community impact ordinance.
The threat of environmental impact is real,
but the solution is not to discourage businesses
that bring jobs and tax income to the city.
The ordinance is too broad.
According to the city of Chicago's website,
the average manufacturing worker
makes 22% more than non-manufacturing workers.
If we discourage manufacturing
and distribution, as well as warehousing, wholesaling
and freight movement.
As per the ordinance, what do we have left?
Retail fast food.
Virtually every business that manufactures
or distributes anything, including food,
could be affected by this ordinance.
The ordinance includes warehousing, wholesaling,
and freight movement.
The problem is that a company doesn't know
how this will impact them.
They may have to take on extensive studies to find out,
and even if they do, they can't predict how it's going
to impact them in the future.
If the tax base falls
and the city budget becomes unsustainable,
I have the option of moving.
The problem is, so do the businesses needed
to sustain our great city.
This ordinance isn't wrong. It's just too broad. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Uh, next up, David Austin,
who will be followed by Jessica Jackson,
David Austin on Corless.
All right. Uh, Jessica Jackson, who will be followed
by Olga Batista.
Jessica? Yes. Yes, Ms. Jackson, you're out.
So the committee on zoning
landmarks and building standards.
All right. There needs to be
landmark consideration for the buildings,
the red brick buildings in South Shore
and the other south side communities instead of
pathways being created through the judicial system
to steal our property.
While you all are going so hard for illegal immigration
and constantly saying about how the residents
of Chicago deserve housing and all this
and that, at the same time, you all are sitting here
and watching property owners in South Shore
and other areas, property getting stolen from us.
You can't say that you don't know because you do.
You can't say that you don't have anything to do with it
because you all are the legislative branch of the city.
You cannot say that you don't know about it.
You can't say that it's fair to, for the citizens
of Chicago to watch Brandon Johnson,
especially the black citizens of Chicago,
to watch him go on and on and on.
Like he's some black revolutionary
while he's pushing his own black people
out of their property.
Now, we keep telling y'all, we looking at these seats,
keep thinking that your seats are not going to be up
for grabs no matter what race you are, no matter
what ward you are in.
We are encouraging the citizens of Chicago to look at
how the aldermen are conducting business for our city,
how they're stealing our money,
especially if we're property owners with all these taxes
and going to illegal immigration when they are not showing
any concern for us, we coming for them seats.
Do you understand that? I hope you do.
Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Next is Olga Batista.
We'll be followed by Beth Dalla. Ted Enos.
Hi, my name is Olga Batista.
I'm the co-executive director
of the Southeast Environmental Task Force.
I'm here to tell you that we don't have to choose
between jobs and clean air.
We can have both. I come from the south side of Chicago,
a proud union town, uh, built by steelworkers,
laborers, electricians, and teachers.
My family represents nearly every major union in the the
city, like SCIU, laborers, IBW, teamster, CTU.
We worked the hard jobs held on our neighborhood
and raised families rooted in solidarity and sacrifice.
That's why I find it so extremely frustrating
to hear industry associations
and labor leaders frame the Hazel m Johnson Cumulative
impact ordinance is a threat to jobs.
It's a false choice
and one that does a disservice
to working families like mine.
The idea that we have to choose between good jobs
and clean air is not just wrong.
It's dangerous. If you wanna know what people really think,
ask all the rank and file people
who work in my neighborhood.
Ask 'em if it's okay for them to watch their kids struggle
with asthma day after day.
Ask them how it feels to visit a family member in the
hospital because their workplace
or their neighborhood made them sick.
Ask them if what it's like to have to choose
between a paycheck and a funeral.
We don't wanna be forced to choose
between survival and security.
We want both. Let's be clear,
this ordinance is non anti-union and it's not anti job.
It's pro accountability.
It calls for smart equitable planning
that protects communities while
supporting a thriving economy.
It's about ensuring that industries operate responsibly
and that all neighborhoods, not just the wealthy ones,
have the right to clean air, clean water,
and a healthy environment.
There's enough forces in this country right now attacking
working people, undermining unions,
and threatening to roll back the rights that generations
before us have fought to win.
We need each other, especially now.
That's why unity between environmental justice activists
and advocates and labor is not just
possible, but it's essential.
Thank you, Ms. Batista.
Next, next up, uh, Beth Dalala, correct me, followed
by Dalton Key.
Yes. I defer to Ted Stalls, president of,
of the CAE Area Industrial Commission.
Mr. Sta Stamos. Yes. Proceed. Good morning. Morning.
Hi, uh, my name is Ted Stanos.
I am the president
and CEO of the Calumet Area Industrial Commission,
a non-for-profit formed in 1967 to,
uh, retain
and attract manufacturing in the greater Calumet area,
which the greater Calumet area, of course includes Indiana
and the south suburbs.
As it stands right now, we're not
enticing anyone to come into the city of Chicago to
build a tax base, which I know is going
to be very important.
I, and I also live in the environmental justice community
and have lived in the community since 1953.
I think I'll beat most people here.
So this is the air that I breathe
and most of my employees have in South Chicago.
Roseland, Pullman Hag, the East side,
and especially as I see Alderman Beal here,
who has done a fine job attracting businesses.
We cannot afford to have more regulation.
No one is looking in Chicago now.
Just look around at the surrounding counties.
Will county, Kankakee County is getting all
of the clean energy industries, um,
and currently hiring everywhere outside of the city,
uh, and so forth.
You're just gonna drive further development away.
And boy, we know we need tax paying businesses
because if it's not paid by business, it's gonna be paid for
by all of my neighbors in the environmental justice
community as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sandlos.
Uh, next up, can we, uh,
next up is Dalton Key, who will be followed by Alex Singer.
Good morning. My name is Dalton Cain.
I'm speaking on behalf of the Industrial Council
of Near West Chicago, uh,
regarding the Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance.
And I want to be clear, we aren't opposed to the ordinance
in total, we're opposed to it as it stands.
We feel that more time to give consideration
to the stakeholders involved, including the residents,
but also local manufacturers who, who don't,
they are not opposed to making improvements
to their facilities
and trying to comply with environmental law.
I think one of our main concerns is their ability to
afford these improvements.
I wanna give a quick story.
Um, it's about a business in the neighborhood that I spoke
to about the Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts ordinance,
their SNB Finishing Co located in the 27th Ward.
After a quick call just kind
of outlining the cumulative impacts ordinance with them,
they discussed an instance where over the past few months,
they've received calls from the Department of Environment
regarding complaints from their facility.
Um, and one difficult instance is when the department
environment comes, they're unable to source the pollution.
So the owner is unable to understand what activities are
contributing to, to pollution and unable
to make those adjustments.
Um, and I I say this
because manufacturers across the board, many
of them are small businesses.
They're local businesses, they've been here employing people
for decades, and there's nothing that they want more than
to comply with environmental law
and ensure that they're being good neighbors,
but also hiring locally.
I think with that, I received my time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. K. Uh, next up is Alex Singer,
who will be followed by Chloe Butler Jones.
Um, good morning, members of the City Council.
My name is Alex Singer
and I'm a senior manager at the Metropolitan Planning
Council, or M-P-C-M-P-C is a nonprofit planning
and policy organization
that addresses built environment issues
through an equity lens.
I'm here on behalf of MPC
to support the Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance.
We believe this ordinance will advance a more
environmentally just healthy
and sustainable Chicago MPC supports this proposed ordinance
because, one, there is clear evidence that Latin
and Black Chicagoan suffer negative health impacts
disproportionately due to their proximity
to living near heavy industrial uses.
Two, we can trace pollution exposures
and negative health outcomes to the city's current
and past land use practices.
Three, air pollution
and air quality have profound effects on individual family
and community health and wellbeing.
And because it would meaningfully improve Chicago's
industrial economy and enable more good jobs
by replacing the ad hoc manner in which heavy industrial
siting currently works with a consistent
and codified process.
Research shows that in cities across the country,
industrial siting policies have disproportionately
concentrated the burdens
of pollution in certain communities, communities
that are already disadvantaged by economic conditions
and by racial discrimination that cuts them out
of decision making and PC's analysis.
SH has shown that in Chicago, the amount of areas zone
for manufacturing is a significant predictor
of higher levels of pollution, and that Latino
and black Chicagoans are more likely
to live in neighborhoods that have more land zone
for manufacturing, as well as in neighborhoods
that have heavier types of industry.
At a time when evidence is mounting
that our air quality has glaringly clear consequences
for all Chicago residents, we appreciate this kind
of responsible and evidence-based policy solution that seeks
to better balance economic growth
with protecting public health.
MPC offers strong support for this ordinance
and stands ready to help ensure it is
effectively implemented.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Singer.
Next, next up we have Chloe Butler.
Jones will be followed by Caroline
Wooten, our final speaker.
Good morning zoning committee.
My name is Chloe, and I am a Chicago resident.
Chicago must lead not lag in protecting public health.
We live in a city where black
and brown working class neighborhoods have been treated
as sacrifice zones for decades.
This is not accidental.
It's the result of zoning policies
that prioritize industry profits over our health.
While I served as co-chair for the communication
and engagement working group
for Chicago's Cumulative Impacts assessment,
we heard hundreds of residents echo
what they have been asking for, for decades,
protection from toxic pollution that continues
to accumulate as we speak.
The Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance is an
opportunity for Chicago
to lead the country in environmental justice.
It ensures that our communities are no longer dumping
grounds for toxic industries.
For too long, neighborhoods like the Southeast side Little
Village, Pilsen, McKinley Park, Inglewood
and Geld Gardens have been overburdened with pollution.
These are the same communities with higher rates of asthma,
cancer, and respiratory illnesses
that is environmental racism.
And action. The city council must stand up
and reject the false choice between jobs and our health.
Responsible zoning means protecting residents from the
cumulative burden of pollution, not adding to it.
If this ordinance is not passed, the message will be clear.
Profits come before people, and black
and brown communities are expendable.
Hazel Johnson, founder of People for Community Recovery,
the organization I very proudly work for, fought
to stop toxic pollution in Chicago.
She led this movement decades ago,
and today we are demanding her legacy.
Be honored with real Policy.
We are calling on the zoning committee
to pass this ordinance when the time comes
and put an end to policies
that have sacrificed our communities.
No more delays, no more excuses. This is about our survival.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Butler Jones.
On our final speakers, Caroline Wooten.
Good morning. Uh, thank you to the zoning board
and thank you to all the community members
who came out in support of this ordinance.
My name's Caroline. I'm the organizing director
for the Illinois Sierra Club.
We have more than 20,000 members across the state
of Illinois, including thousands
here in the city of Chicago.
I'm here to urge the zoning board, um,
to when you get the opportunity,
vote yes on the Hazel Johnson ordinance.
As people have shared,
some areas in Chicago are pre-approved for pollution.
That means polluters can open up shop without any
pre-approval from the city,
and certain neighborhoods suffer
disproportionately from pollution.
And as a result from things like cancer, asthma,
and other illnesses, uh,
these neighborhoods are largely on the southwest
and southwest sides.
And when we look at disparities in life expectancy in the
city of Chicago, this is one of the factors I want
to remind everyone of how this ordinance came about.
First decades
of organizing from environmental justice communities,
which is why this ordinance is named
after Hazel m Johnson, the mother
of environmental justice from here in Chicago.
And more recently, a federal investigation found
that Chicago was engaging in housing discrimination
by steering polluters disproportionately
to communities of color.
Now, the city might feel off the hook,
or city council might at this point
because the Trump administration dismissed this case.
This is not surprising
because we know our current president could give a,
you know, what about the wellbeing of people in this city.
Um, but you know what? I think the zoning board should care.
I think city council should care.
And this ordinance provides some very basic protections,
which requires, um, new and expanding polluters.
Do a study, meet with the community, and get a permit.
This is just a baseline of due diligence
and respect, um, for what at the end of the day, is life
and death decisions for communities.
Thank you.
Thank you, Wooten. All right.
Uh, thank you. We'll now move on to the agenda.
First item up is document number oh 2025 dash
0 0 1 6 6 9 7.
A text amendment introduced by Mayor Johnson
and co-sponsored by Alders, LaSpada
and Hadden that amends the municipal code chapter two dash
31 and Title 17.
Regarding environmental cumulative impacts
of pollution on historically disadvantaged areas,
the Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impact Ordinance.
This item has a substitute ordinance.
All committee members will find a copy
of the ordinance in the packet before you.
It was al also emailed out this morning.
Um, all their quesada makes a motion
to accept the substitute ordinance.
All in favor say aye. And they opposed say nay.
The ayes have it. Uh, to be clear,
we're having a subject matter hearing.
Uh, no votes will be taken at the end of the hearing.
Um, I know Commissioner Tovar, uh, we have you
with us on the Zoom.
Okay. Yes, that is correct.
Great, thank you. And then I know your,
your team is here as well.
We've been joined by Alderman Hopkins,
but for purposes of quorum, uh, who's gonna kick us off?
Great.
Mic check. Okay. Thank you, vice chair.
Um, good morning everyone. My name is Gabby Wagner Sodo.
I'm a project manager with the Department of Environment.
Um, on behalf of DOE, we are thrilled
and grateful for the opportunity
to present on the Hazel Johnson
Cumulative Impacts Ordinance.
Joining me in the box today is our Deputy Commissioner,
Jared Pcio.
From DPD, we have zoning administrator Patrick Murphy,
director of Policy at CDPH.
Kate McMahon, CDOC, assistant Commissioner Bill Higgins,
chief of Policy Jong.
And finally, we have DOE Commissioner Angela Tovar
joining us virtually.
I'd also like to acknowledge the many
community advocates in the room with us.
Um, if y'all don't mind waving your hands so we can see you.
Thank you. Um, this ordinance, uh,
would not exist without their leadership
and partnership, so thank you for being here today.
Um, I also want to introduce a very special person, um,
is Cheryl Johnson, daughter of Hazel Johnson,
and founder of People for Community Recovery.
Cheryl, we're, we're grateful to have you here.
Um, and I will hand you the mic
to provide a few more remarks.
Um, I just want to thank my community
that came out for this today.
And I would like to thank the city
for working on this important ordinance.
You know, my organization is 46 years old,
and my mother spent all her heart
and soul to get to the point where we at today,
40 years ago, we wasn't near where we at today.
And we have to make the changes.
We have to make the personal sacrifices.
We are not against industry. We pro industry.
We just wanna live in a better quality of life
and not to have to have our community designated based on
the smell of the air.
We have to change that
because it's about the future generation, not just now.
It's about what our future generation, what our grandkids
and grandkids will have to endure in the city of Chicago.
We have to put this framework together.
It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's inev inevitable
because life, the quality of life,
you cannot measure with a dollar.
Our life is important, everybody. Life is important.
But this is the opportunity this ordinance gave the
opportunity for community, the city
and industries to sit down.
We don't have a framework.
We cannot continue to operate in the manner
that we operate like in the 18 hundreds
or the early 19 hundreds.
Things change. And we have to, we have to,
we have to think that way.
And I'm willing to sit at anybody table
to have this discussion, to make it equitable
and fair for everybody,
especially when it comes to our health.
So I'm, I'm honored that my mother took the initiative
to start this journey,
and that's why they called her the mother
of environmental justice.
She did it on a federal level,
and she always prayed
that it would happen in our own community.
And I am so happy to be here in this chamber today
representing her in regards to making our life.
It's not just about community, it's about all of our life
a little bit better and healthier.
Thank you.
Thank you, Cheryl. I'm going to kick us off
with a broad overview of the ordinance, um,
and then we'll go more into specifics.
Um, the Hazel Johnson cumulative impacts ordinance was
created with the aim of creating a healthier
and safer Chicago.
The ordinance does this
by modifying the current zoning process.
Um, it does this by requiring certain intensive industrial
facilities to conduct what's called a cumulative impact
study, which assesses, uh,
projects on their potential environmental
and health impacts.
The ordinance also creates a new EJ advisory board, um,
to offer non-binding guidance
to the city on environmental justice initiatives.
And third, the ordinance. Oh, sorry.
I don't know what happened. There we go. Um, thank you.
And third, the ordinance requires new
and expanding intensive industrial facilities to go
through an additional review at the time
of site plan approval to ensure that they are safe
for the health of communities and the environment.
It's also important to mention that, uh, the development
of this ordinance fulfills a city's the city's commitment
to the voluntary compliance agreement signed with us, um,
department of Housing and Urban Development,
and several community groups.
I'll now pass it over
to zoning administrator Patrick Murphy,
who will go quickly go over some
of the zoning components of the ordinance.
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. So,
as you can see on the screen, the, uh,
straightforward element to this ordinance is that all
of the current land uses, which are regulated by
what is commonly known as the air quality ordinance,
are included under this ordinance.
There is not an expansion of any use categories
that are added to this ordinance.
And this reflects, uh, not only the waste related uses
that are typically found in our manufacturing
and plant manufacturing districts,
but the most intensive industrial
and recycling operations
that we also have in those same areas.
Uh, next slide please. And then again, this also reiterates
that the requirements pursuant to this ordinance
that applicants would need to proceed with reviews
through the other departments prior to proceeding
with any type of zoning analysis
or building permit only apply when there is a new
development or when one of these existing operations
that fell into the categories on the previous slide
expands in intensity.
So if someone is reducing their intensity,
reducing their size, that would not trigger this analysis.
Uh, next slide.
Great. Thank you, Patrick.
Um, so what I'm gonna do now is walk
through the cumulative impact study review process.
Um, now that we're familiar with the types of facilities
that are subject to the ordinance, um, this will kind
of help you, guide you through, um, kind of from start
to beginning or beginning to end of the, uh, review process.
So starting up at the top, um,
an applicant would submit a cumulative impact study
to the zoning administrator
and the chief sustainability officer
once received the CSO posts,
the cumulative impact study on the cumulative
impacts website.
At the same time the CSO forwards the CI study.
So the cumulative impact study to reviewing departments
and the EJ advisory board within 14
to 35 days after submission.
So after the, um, the applicant submits the CI study, uh,
the applicant also hosts a community meeting.
That community meeting occurs within the ward
of the project site.
Um, and the, uh, applicant also has to affirm the date,
location, and time of that meeting.
Once the community meeting, um,
concludes the CI study is open to public comment
for the next 30 days.
After the public comment period concludes,
the applicant submits a report that addresses the public
comments and the comments made during the community meeting.
That report gets submitted to, uh, the CSO,
and then within 45 days upon receiving the report,
reviewing departments make recommendations based on, um,
the CI study.
It's really important to mention at this step
of the process, um, that this is where we see the applicant
and city departments with that subject matter expertise,
discuss potential mitigation measures, um, discuss anything
that's within their CI study, um,
and again, reach consensus on those mitigation measures.
Um, second to last step is the reviewing departments, um,
submit their recommendations to the zoning administrator.
Um, and then the zoning administrator has 30 days
to conduct the site plan review.
And now I'm gonna hand it over to Kate McMahon,
who will talk through some of the components
of the cumulative impact study.
Thanks, Gabby. Good morning.
So, as you can see on the screen,
the cumulative impact study referenced in the policy
proposal builds on the existing traffic
and air quality impact studies that are already required
by the air quality and zoning ordinance.
Um, and so what we're doing here is really adding, um,
an environmental review form that allows us to consider
the other environmental
and community impacts, how they interact
with existing conditions as part of the zoning
and permitting decision making processes.
You can go to the next slide.
And as you can see, there's four elements
to the environmental review overview.
First, a project description, second, uh, summary
of pre-existing neighborhood conditions.
Third, an element related to the project impact.
And then fourth, regulatory, um, obligations.
And again, here, the aim is for us to be able
to see additional information about the potential impacts on
air quality, quality of life and health.
And then if applicable, how a project proposes
to mitigate those impacts
to aid in the Deci City's decision making.
Thanks, Kate. So,
a few things about the EJ advisory Board.
Um, as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation,
the EJ advisory Board is structured
to provide non-binding guidance to the city
on environmental justice initiatives.
The board is public and advisory only, and its power
and duties include collaborating
with city departments on policies
and initiatives, um,
including the Environmental Justice Action Plan,
which is led by DOE.
I also wanna make it crystal clear
that the board does not have any decision making authority
in the permitting of individual projects.
And then, in regards to the overall cumulative impact
process, there's some several key strengths to mention.
Um, one, due to the requirement
of completing a cumulative impact study at the beginning
of site plan approval, developers who are seeking permits
for their new or expanding developments, uh, are
provided a clear and, um, more standard pro review process.
The expectations, again, are more transparent, um,
and is front loaded at the beginning of, of their journey
through, um, the bureaucratic process.
Um, number two, the city, the CI study allows the city
to have more expansive evaluation on the potential health
and environmental impacts of proposed industrial sites.
And then third, um, the defined, uh, review timelines
that are written within the ordinance provides a quicker
site plan review turnaround.
This is important because currently there aren't any set,
any, there aren't any set timeframes, um, for departments
to complete their, uh, reviews.
Um, so, you know, as you all may recall,
the ordinance was first introduced back in April,
and since then there have been significant, um, move.
There's been significant movement and outreach
and engagement across the city.
Um, this work has very much been collaborative.
Um, a key, a few key highlights include, um,
strategy meetings with labor partners
to ensure worker perspectives, um, help guide the policy.
Uh, there have been, uh, numerous meetings between, uh,
department of environment, mayor's office,
and community advocates.
Um, there have also been five public community forums across
the city, um, especially to gather lived experience
and, uh, really local priorities of that community.
Uh, the, the ordinance has also received, um, over 80,
80 plus endorsements, um,
really showing broad coalition support.
Um, and finally, we've held 15
or more, um, one-on-one consultations with developers,
workforce groups, chamber of commerce,
and small business, uh,
to incorporate economic operational sites insights.
So this is, uh, it's looking probably very small on the
screen, but, um, it is, uh, a comprehensive list of, uh,
the stakeholder engagement, um,
we have done thus far this year.
Um, as you can see, you know, we have been reaching out
and having conversations with, um,
various sectors including labor, business, real estate, um,
the leery, uh, delegate agencies, as well as community
and civic groups,
which brings us, um, really to this critical moment.
Um, since April's introduction, we've collected
so much vital feedback, um,
and have made several concessions
with which are reflected in the substitute ordinance
that you all have today.
In the latest, uh, version of the substitute ordinance,
we clarified, um,
that the board serves an advisory capacity only.
We also allocated a board seat, uh,
to a labor representative.
We, um, required within the powers
and duties of the board, we required the board
to adopt rules for, uh,
its internal operations within six months of its start.
We also clarified that the board cannot reject, delay,
condition, or block any permit applications.
The ordinance also includes a 30 day public comment period,
which occurs after the community meeting.
And, um, in, within the, the substitute ordinance,
there's specificity on the components
of what's in the cumulative impact study.
And that concludes my presentation.
Um, welcome all of your questions. Thank you.
Great. Um, all on the spot as a co-sponsor.
Would you like to kick us off or we can go with others?
Take a moment to collect my thoughts,
but I appreciate the, the difference.
Sure, absolutely. Um, questions by committee members.
Alderman Sava.
Thank you, chairman. Uh,
and thank you for the presentation.
Um, thank you for all your work
and for all the, uh,
advocates for the work that they've done.
You know, I think that every time we try to do what's right
for community, there's pushback, you know,
and I think that it's sometimes hard for industry
to acclimate to that.
Um, but I, I do see the work that has been put in, um,
and in a time where we are having rollbacks to protections.
I think that the work that the city is doing is very
important, and I do hope
that we can pass this at some point soon.
So, my, my list of questions are as follows, um, what kinds
of health data, like asthma rates, lead exposure,
or cancer clusters, will this ordinance help the city track
and respond to more effectively?
Thank you, alderman, for your question.
I'm actually gonna hand it over to Kate McMahon at CDPH.
Kate McMahon, director of Policy
for the Department of Public Health.
Uh, thank you for the question, alderman.
So the cumulative impacts ordinance builds on the
foundational work of the cumulative impacts assessment
that the city released in, um, 2023.
And there are a couple of big categories that we looked at,
um, from a cumulative impact burden there.
So first, um, environmental exposures,
second environmental conditions.
And then we also look at sensitive populations
and socioeconomic factors.
And I think the spirit of your question really gets
to sensitive populations.
So we did look at rates of asthma, coronary heart disease,
disability, low birth weight, old age, young age, as part
of the methodology to develop the
cumulative impact assessment.
And then as the cumulative impact study contemplates moving
forward, um, effectively industry would be having
to model just as they do now under the air quality zoning
ordinance, um, emissions,
potential emissions from their business.
So you're thinking about, um, air quality, air pollution,
and what we're able to do
by a more robust cumulative impact study is layer on
those other elements.
So how, um, might that, um, you know,
build on existing environmental exposures,
existing environmental conditions, sensitive populations,
and socioeconomic factors.
Thank you. Um, can you explain
how the ordinance will help the city identify
and prevent overlapping pollution sources
that worsen respiratory
and heart disease in our neighborhoods?
So what the ordinance proposes is
that the cumulative impact study,
or the cumulative impact assessment, excuse me,
that I just referenced, would be updated every five years.
Um, and that would be done as part of a, um, a process
that the Health department does already.
It's, it's called a Community Health needs assessment.
So we're looking at a number of indicators, um, of health
and quality of life.
Um, but then what the cumulative impacts ordinance also does
is it allows the city to look more comprehensively
at not only air and traffic study,
but also the, um, elements
that we referenced in the environmental review form, um,
to really get at the level of a particular site, um,
and what might be mitigation strategies
to reduce the overall, um, environmental burden.
Great. And then how will the ordinance make, uh,
the health impacts or potential impacts, um, more visible so
that families, schools,
and clinics can, uh, have more clear, uh, methods
of advocacy with real data behind them?
So, um, thank you for the question.
Um, within the cumulative impacts, um, ordinance,
there is, um, opportunity for community input.
Um, so
as the cumulative impact study is submitted, published,
there is opportunity for review.
Um, and then in addition to the stakeholders
who you mentioned, which are very important,
I think it also makes the process more transparent
for business, um, themselves
because it really allows the regulated industry to respond
to public comments and name, um,
what elements would be included in their
mitigation strategy or plans.
Got it. And then lastly, um, how does the, you know,
cu cumulative impact, uh,
study affect the timeline in the permitting
process of applicants?
I'm sure that's something that we're gonna hear.
We've heard a lot from, um, you know, leaders of industries,
just, um, how this gets in the way,
or it could be cumbersome.
Could you explain a little bit how
that actually affects the timeline
process compared to what it is today?
Yeah, great question. Thank you alderman for that.
Um, and that is, I think, you know, something
that we've been hearing as well is, is, you know,
how does the completion of the CI study, you know,
if you were an applicant, let's say, um, how does
that impact your overall project scope and timeline?
Um, the process for the CI city really doesn't start
until we receive that CI study.
So it is, it is up to the applicant to complete
and have it fully completed, um,
and hand it over to the city so
that we can conduct our review.
Um, I'm gonna go back to the timeline
because I always like a good visual, um, here,
you know, it indicates that, um, once the city does receive
that study that really kicks off our process.
Um, you know, there is a community meeting involved,
you know, component to it as well, as well as, um,
a 30 day public common period,
and then 45 days for the city to do its own review.
Um, so give
or take, you're looking at, you know,
several months I think, within the process.
Um, however, I really wanna emphasize,
and you know, I, Patrick can speak more to this if he wants,
um, that we cannot do our, our process until we have
that completed study.
And do you know, by any chance, like how on average,
how long a study takes to complete?
That is something we don't have a thorough, uh,
viewpoint on because we're still
developing the study itself.
Um, but we can certainly, um, you know, keep you aware as,
as we find more information out. Yeah,
Excellent. Yeah, I think that'd be
good for all of our colleagues here
to, to better understand so
that we can all advocate properly.
Um, but yeah, no, in closing, you know, I,
I think at the end of the day, um, you know, these, uh,
regulatory protections are, are not anti-growth.
I think that we really need to change the narrative on that.
I think that growth comes from the protection
and investment in our communities,
not just unfettered deregulation.
Um, that's, it's not true.
It's not been true for the past 50,
40 years of, of that narrative.
And, um, I think we would be doing a huge disservice
as a city if we contributed to
that broken narrative and analysis.
Thank you very much. Thank
You, alderman. Uh, and
we'll go back to Alderman Lata.
Okay. Thank you. So thank you very much, chair.
I, I, I wanna, um, thank the advocates
who are with us here today.
I, I want to thank Ms. She, my hand
Is up, alderman, just so you know. Ch
I I got you. Alderman Moore.
I wanna thank Ms. Ms. Johnson
and for, for her work, for the work of her mother
that got us here today.
But I particularly wanna thank, um, older woman Ramirez for
her leadership, her commitment, her collaboration
with the groups who are moving this forward.
Um, we, we wouldn't even be at this hearing without you,
so I wanna acknowledge that.
Um, and I feel like if, if you speaking to my first ward
constituents on this, many of whom through their solidarity,
understand the importance of this work.
But if you only spend your Chicago life up in Logan Square
or, um, let's say like on the north side,
you might not always understand why we are fighting
for this, why so many people would turn out in the middle
of a Monday to come out to this meeting.
And I am very grateful for groups like, uh,
I mean groups in your community in McKinley Park
who invited me out when I worked for Friends of the Parks,
to understand what it means to have an asphalt plant
cited directly across the street from a public park.
I'm really grateful for neighbors,
and this is a while ago in Lincoln Park who called out
what it means to have a recycling facility in the middle
of a residential neighborhood.
I, I remember, um, alt one
and Ramirez, like when the Environmental Protection
and Energy Committee was chaired by your predecessor, who,
I can say this now 'cause it's eight years later,
had a good laugh at the, the shrapnel, the metal pollution
that neighbors brought in that had litter their sidewalks
during the day.
Um, and people cheered when
that facility left Lincoln Park.
And for a while, the city was only too glad
to see it relocated to the south side.
Um, and that's such a consistent story.
The, the narrative that we heard from some
in public comment is a story that we've heard for
I think at least 50 years in the city of Chicago.
If you want a tax base, if you want jobs,
you better be prepared to accept the pollution
and the health risks that go with it.
And I'm very glad to be in a moment in Chicago
where we're not just talking about the injustice in
that narrative, but we're actually doing something about it.
Um, so grateful for that work.
I wanted to ask two quick questions.
Number one, when we look at the timeline,
this is really helpful because I, I think for those
who are concerned about the clarity in this
ordinance, there's such predictability in
what we're looking at here, and I really appreciate that.
This may be a bit of an obvious question,
but the, the time timeline
that we're looking at here within 45 days, um, of,
upon receiving the report zoning administrator has 30 days.
None of this precludes, these are maximum timelines.
Correct? Like nothing precludes decisions being made, um,
earlier than what we see on the screen.
Correct?
Correct. Okay.
I also wanted to ask, and this may be obvious,
but in addition to being advisory, um,
how would the impact studies that were being asked
for be used, um, what would we expect
the departments to do with these impact studies?
How could the applicant, for instance, re uh, respond
to feedback from their impact study?
Yeah, thank you Alderman for that question.
Um, so we included, as you'll see kind of in the bottom
left corner, uh, square,
and the time timeline here, um,
that the applicant is expected to produce a report
that really addresses the public feedback.
Um, you know, the city does take that information
as well from the applicant.
Um, and it's really at this like close to final step where,
you know, the, the, the city departments really talk
through the applicant's um, CI study.
I think really the ultimate goal here is to, you know,
pass projects that are clean, right?
That are okay for the environment that, you know,
the public understands maybe necessary
that increases jobs, et cetera, right?
We're not trying to dismiss projects, um,
but we wanna make sure that, you know, they, um, are,
you know, good for, for our community as well.
So, um, this, at that point, you know,
after the cities have conducted their review,
enters the conversation with the applicant on
what are some possible mitigation measures
that a project could include.
And we've, you know,
currently we see mitigation measures vary from, you know,
dust control measures.
Um, sometimes there's air monitoring, right?
Sometimes there's vegetative buffer
that gets included into a site plan.
So these, again, are all examples that, you know,
applicants even as
of today have included in their site plan.
And alderman, just one, one other thing to add on to
what Gabby said, based on your questions, Jared,
deputy Commissioner at DOE.
So the other key thing to note about this, um,
this process is it replaces an existing process already
currently occurring at the zoning stage,
an air quality review process.
It replaces it, in our opinion, with a more
timely consolidated, um, delineated process than,
than what exists now.
So, um, from the department standpoint, this is actually a,
uh, um, an improvement upon the efficiency
of the existing process,
the interdepartmental process. Jared,
Could you, could we go to that slide for a second?
There's a slide that showed we,
we had three different processes,
and then we were talking about the, uh,
cumulative impact study.
Do you folks know the one that I'm, I'm talking about? No.
Maybe slide six, Gabby. Oh, okay. I think that's the one.
Wait, which It was a V. There it is. Okay.
So could you speak more to that, Jared?
So like, when we're looking at the environmental overview,
this is, is this in addition to or supplanting the traffic
and air quality studies?
So it is a combination, right? So it's great question.
Um, so currently, right, um,
under the air quality zoning ordinance, applicants have
to submit a two independent studies.
One's a traffic study, the other is an air quality study.
What we are saying
and suggesting with cumulative impacts is rather than having
an applicant's, you know, you have to go
through two different studies, which we know is actually
pretty costly, combine them,
but with an additional component, which is this,
what we're calling here, the environmental review.
So that comprehensively, right, we can assess the project
at its whole, right?
Um, when, when you go in for, you know,
let's say a doctor evaluation, right?
You're, you're getting the comprehensive exam,
you're not getting, you're not seeing individual doctors.
So similar concept there, sorry for the medical reference,
but I hope you understand
It is a good reference.
I, I honestly, I, I wish that our healthcare system worked
as well as you just described
to conversation for another day.
But this, this, I appreciate,
this feels like a critical point.
'cause I feel like the narrative
that we've sometimes been hearing is we're just piling on.
My gosh, all of this already exists.
Why are you adding to it? This is a combination.
This is a consolidation,
and it's a wiser way, in my opinion, from,
from having visited some of these sites
and seeing what the impacts of,
it's a much more comprehensive way
of looking at these impacts
and being able to address them holistically from the outset.
Um, I think those are my key questions
for right now.
I appreciate the work. I, I'd be, I'd be voting
for today, but I, I appreciate the collaboration
that's getting us to a place where everyone
who feels these impacts, everyone who's being communicated
to about these impacts can feel comfortable with the vote.
And I'm, I'm hopefully hopeful that that vote, uh,
takes place before the end
of this year. Thank you, chair. Thank
You Alderman. Uh,
we'll have Alderman Viegas followed by Alderman Moore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the presenters, uh,
for putting forward this, um, this, uh,
subject matter hearing.
Um, I've submitted, uh, numerous questions
through the chair, um, sent them via email,
so hopefully at some point, um, they could be sent on
to the proper person to answer them.
Um, and I also am encouraged that, uh,
there has been some discussions with, uh, all the subject
of the, all the impacted, um, industries as well
as the community groups, uh, labor real estate, et cetera.
Uh, because we are at a point where, uh,
we are relying on those investments as we face all types
of competition from, uh, Indiana, Wisconsin, et cetera.
And so we wanna make sure that we're open for business.
Um, and I am, uh, I am, um,
I think there is some,
I think there is a path forward.
However, I think that the meetings that have started
just last couple of months since its introduction, um,
have some, have some time to go.
That being said, I know there's language in this ordinance
that industry experts as well as, uh, labor have proposed
that kind of get to where it is that
this ordinance wants to get to.
And, um, I'm hoping that, um,
and I've challenged those folks as well that have opposition
to it, to not just say no,
but take a look at the language there
and put forward a substitute language that accomplishes what
the city is trying to accomplish, as well as ensuring
that development doesn't stop.
So I wanted to put that on the record.
'cause at this point, um, do have some concerns.
But I am, I am helpful.
I am, um, grateful
that these conversations are occurring and I think we can get there.
So it's going to be a lot of compromise.
Um, this slide here specifically, um,
when we talk about the cumulative impact study, we see
that in the past, traffic
and air, air quality were the requirements.
Is that correct? Prior to this?
I'm sorry, can you repeat the
question one more time, Al? So
A, a sort of cumulative impact study would've been traffic
and air quality before,
and now we're adding this environmental
review. That's correct.
S so one point to clarify is
that we do not consider the cumulative impact study
currently as it is with the traffic and air studies.
Those are two separate studies.
They are simply called air, air quality,
and then the other ones traffic impact.
Um, but they don't, you know, they aren't the,
the comprehensive cumulative impact study
because of this third component that is missing, which is
that environmental review.
Right? And, and, and the reason why I asked that is
because traffic and air quality are pretty straightforward.
What's the impact on this traffic? What's the air quality?
Um, however, the new environmental review,
um, goes a little bit further.
And I think there's, this is where this subjectivity, um,
I'm concerned about the subjectivity.
So it would also include, um, safety
and economic impacts,
and then, uh, environmental justice environment,
the description of e economic impacts.
So can you explain what that, what that means,
and how does that get approved or disapproved?
Yes,
Thank you, alderman.
Um, I will actually go to the next slide
because it provides a little bit more context of the, oh,
sorry, I forget that I have two buns press.
Um, it goes a little bit more into the details
of the environmental review, um, in terms of, uh, you know,
the preexisting neighborhood conditions.
So that number two, right?
That is really looking at, um, several components,
the environmental and socio-economic conditions of the, um,
community within a mile radius.
So that kind of go, gets a little bit into the data around,
um, economic, uh, status and,
and sort of how, what the makeup
of the neighborhood looks like.
Um, you know, in, in addition to that,
this third component project impact, um, also, you know,
addresses, um, the environmental, um, impact of, of the
proposed project, but it also looks at, um,
community benefits.
And I think that's where we are looking at, you know,
in terms of job creation, for instance,
or how it might, um, integrate, you know,
integrate a project might integrate within
the local economy.
That's what we're also asking is information
that really explains that.
Um,
So, but that's not really an environmental review.
That's, doesn't, has anything to do with the environment
as relates to the economic impact of jobs.
I mean, it has nothing to do with the environment
unless you're going to, um, take into account, uh,
people traveling to and from work.
Uh, I'm just trying to understand how
that fits into the environmental review and whether
or not that's something that can be approved or disproved.
Yeah, thanks, alderman. Jared Ika, the deputy.
Um, I, I think I understand where you're getting.
I, you know, and, and maybe this slide ultimately should be
environmental and other impacts, you know, overview.
Um, you, you know, my understanding and,
and team here, correct me if I'm wrong, is
that those other impacts,
alderman don't necessarily have to be negative.
That this is a holistic review where you could,
you could have both positive
and negative, um, factors, all, all being,
all being assembled in the, in this stage of the process.
Okay. Um, and Mr.
Chairman, as I stated, I did submit a bunch of questions.
So, um, and then my last question,
and I'll continue hearing dialogue.
And if I have another question, Mr.
Chairman, I would love the oppor
opportunity to ask another one.
If, if so, how many projects have been completed
and approved over the last five years
that would've fit into this,
into this restrict into this, uh, category Here?
I'm gonna hand it over to Patrick to answer that question.
Hi. Thank you, alderman.
Uh, it's been approximately 20 projects,
which mirrors the quantity of projects
that fall into these same use categories
for the years predating
for the same years predating
the current version of the ordinance.
That's, and how many of those 20 were, how many
of those 20 were denied?
How many of those 20 that fit the criteria
of this ordinance were denied?
None, right? So for 20 submittals, 20 approved,
that's where, uh, I'm, again, that's where I'm trying
to figure out what are we trying to solve for.
Um, but I will continue to hear the discussion.
And, uh, again, I'm, I'm, I'm happy that there's a lot
of discussions going on now with all the indus, all the, uh,
uh, all the parties
because again, uh, I would love to get here to support this.
I think this, um, is something that, uh, could positively
send a message from the city as well.
But, uh, right now I'm just having a little bit of concerns.
Thank you.
Thank you, alderman. Um, alderman Mosley,
are you with us on the Zoom?
I said Alderman Moore was next.
Uh, Moore will be next to speak,
but I gotta, I gotta get Mosley in for quorum if he's there.
Yes. Oh, okay. Just wanted to be clear. Chair, I'm here.
And Alderwoman Claire, are you in? Not yet. All right.
Alderman Conway makes a motion, uh, to allow Alderman Mosley
to attend other provisions of Rule 59.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
And chair, the ayes have it next to speak.
All the, and more followed by. Thank you all the men, Beal.
Thank you. And thanks for letting my Simeon brother in.
Um, I, uh, first of all,
thank you all so much for this hearing.
It, there's been so many, um, uncertainties and concerns,
and then now it's another, a new, um, substitute ordinance
that I haven't taken a look at,
but I will now that it,
it was just sent over, I think, recently.
And so what I, I started numbering my questions one through
10, but when I got to number 10,
because it was based on a question that one
of my colleagues asked,
and they asked about the timeline,
what would be like the timeline of the study,
and someone from the department answered,
they are still working that out.
And so, help me understand that question.
'cause that now concerns me that
I'm glad we having this hearing until we work that out.
How can we even pass a ordinance if that's not worked out?
So if I'm not understanding something, let me know.
So let's start with quote my question 10,
and I'll go back to my one,
Right? So just to be clear,
em,
we are doing just subject matter only today.
Um, the item,
Right? No, I got that. I
know it's a subject matter today. Okay.
Alright, great. But I, I'll turn it back.
But I know it's been a push to try to move it.
And so I'm asking when do we expect that
determination of how long it would take
based on my colleagues?
I forgot who it was. Ask about the timeline study.
When will we have that information?
'cause I don't think we can pass this ordinance
without that information.
That's, that's all I'm saying.
I ain't saying, I know we not doing it today,
but I'm, that's why I'm asking when would that come about.
All right. So I'm gonna defer to the team.
Thanks. Fair. And thank you Alderman for that question.
Um, time is really important. I totally get it.
So, um, we, I just wanna clarify that we, um,
do have a timeline in terms of the review process.
Um, so again, to just clarify that even further,
the time starts ticking once we receive
that cumulative impact study from an applicant.
Um, from there, right, they have
to conduct a community meeting within 35 days.
Um, and then there's also an additional 30
days for public comment.
So right now, if we're walking through this,
that's two months essentially, um, from there on out, the,
um, applicant has to submit a report, um,
really demonstrating
that they've reviewed the public comments, um,
from the community meeting
and also from that 30 day public comment period.
And once the city receives that report, uh,
the reviewing departments have 45 days.
Um, they have to come up with a recommendation
and submit that to the zoning administrator,
who then has 30 days to finalize the site plan,
um, uh, approval.
So, um, you know, kind of counting down the days here.
And of course that changes, right when you're looking at
special use and, and plan development.
Um, special use will take a shorter timeframe
into consideration with the rest of these date, you know,
days, um, and then plan development a little longer.
Um, overall from our calculations, um, the timeline
for plan development is approximately four to five months,
whereas plan development is, um, closer to six.
And Alderman Moore, Jared Peko from DOE,
just one other thing that might help
to clear up any confusion
and apologies if, if this was confusing.
I think we might have been, um, answering in response to
how long would it take the applicant to do this,
the cumulative impact study.
And I think we just said that we weren't completely sure of
that, given this is in effect yet.
But you, you know, if it would be helpful to you, we,
we could certainly do some thinking on
and comparing against, um, how long folks take to do the,
the two studies in air quality zoning.
Now, we could do some thinking about how long that's likely
to take, but once the study's submitted as Gabby went
through, there's uh, there's a fairly, um, defined set of,
uh, uh, of timeframes that then kick in.
We could also, through the chair, add up the, uh,
those timeframes like, like Abby just did on average and,
and provide that to you.
Thank you so much for doing that clarification.
'cause I was confused and you, you help,
but still I think that's gonna be important, um, to have
that information.
Um, before, uh, you know, we get to, uh, passage.
Now, someone, when they started out speaking, said,
and I apologize, and I don't know who said, um,
this gonna affect,
and it used the term certain industrial facilities.
Why was the word certain used and what does certain mean?
Yeah, we can clarify that. Alderman.
I'm gonna move through some slides here.
Um, as Patrick stated, um, towards the beginning
of the presentation, what we mean by certain are, um,
this list right here.
So it's, um, you know, a subset of industrial
facility types varying from large recyclers.
So class three to class five.
Um, and then of course we have many other uses here.
Um, so rather than spelling them all out, uh, we, we,
you know, just say certain
because we didn't wanna make the claim
that it was all industry.
Okay. And I'll, I'll review that during the, um, process.
And then the second part it said, uh, it creates a board.
And I think we had some discussions around this,
but just for my clarification, again,
how many people on this board
or what was the, what's the proposal?
Yeah. Um, so under the ordinance, there are,
I believe, sorry, I'm just referencing the ordinance
for my own knowledge here.
Um, there are 21 members on the board, um,
and they, um, vary in, you know, sectors.
Um, so we have representation from labor, from business,
from public health, um, and then from, uh, community
And alderman, just two little details.
Um, so first it's, uh, it's up to 21 members, right? Gabby?
Correct. Yeah. Um, uh,
and then the second thing, just
to highlight while this slide is up, uh,
this also might clarify your question about certain,
this does not, um, cover all types of manufacturing.
So if you notice on the fourth
bullet it says intensive manufacturing,
production, industrial service.
So that's another reason it's only certain
industrial facilities.
Uh, real quick I'm gonna jump in.
Is, is there a list or is that a defined term
that you can send with, uh, share with us
intensive manufacturing, production, and industrial service?
Is there a list of specific users in that realm?
I don't know about specific users,
but we can certainly sh I can share the definition
with the committee and I could, I could give,
well, I guess just to add onto the comment earlier,
and I could, we, we could highlight
what industrial uses are not included in this list, if
that provides some clarity
Or both. I mean, there's, and
We can, we can do both. An
example of each existing in the city
now and, and those that are not.
Yeah, we, we had, we had someone here from, uh,
paving earlier, which I'm assuming is included.
Yes, sir. It is. And I'm not certain I can give an example
for every single one if there might,
there may not, may not be right. But we will,
We will get you back to information.
I think that clarity is helpful. Um,
sorry, VIN more anything else?
No, you don't be sorry. No,
you remember I had about 10 questions,
so that was just number three. Oh,
Well I'm putting you on 10 minutes though.
We gotta do this like budget. Okay.
Oh, alright. Alright.
We can come back 'cause we
we're not gonna be done with this.
So you can stop me at my 10 minutes.
Am am I 10 minutes done yet? You
You got, you got one more question.
Oh no, you stopped the clock, didn't you?
But I do have one more question. I
Was just watching it.
Alright, so on this, um, 21, um, member board, just
to be clear, that's an appointment by the, the mayor
that help me understand yes or no?
That's correct. Okay.
And um, and then,
and the 21 member board
for clarification is just making a recommendation, correct?
Yes. So just to clarify, it's 21 members
that includes four ex Exofficio members.
Um, so the 16 that are mayor appointed, um, will have
to be approved by city council.
Um, and I'm sorry if I missed your question,
alderman, but hopefully that clarifies.
I said, I said then the board just makes the
recommendation to the council.
'cause you said it doesn't take away council authority,
so I'm assuming the board that makes the recommendation
to the council, correct?
Or am I missing something?
So it's only it, the, the board is advisory only. Mm-hmm.
So it doesn't necessarily provide
recommendations to the council.
It, um, within its own, you know, uh, with,
as a board, essentially they are able to discuss
and, uh, deliberate, you know, proposals,
but they don't provide, uh, recommendations forward
to the city or city council.
So just, uh, to jump in again, the,
the advisory board provide, what are they providing then?
So they provide guidance on environmental justice
initiatives for the city at large.
But this is, they're reviewing
these projects though, right?
No, no. So this, this board is not project specific? No.
It is just giving advice on gen. Generally.
It's gonna meet quarterly or monthly and,
and talk about trends in environmental justice.
Correct. Okay.
And, and chair, may, may I just, um, add here, um,
I I think one of the things that we heard loud
and hear from folks is that they wanted more transparency
and to hear a little bit more about
what the functions of the board is.
Are I, I wanna also just name, you know,
that the city has a wide range of strategies
that we're working on to improve, you know, environmental
and public health in the city.
So you think about things like our tree initiative, um,
you know, some of the work that we're doing
to support industrial quarter
or modernization that DPD, um, you know, some of the work
that the transportation department is doing to, you know,
address emissions in our city.
Those are all environmental justice strategies, right?
At the heart of all of that is to improve our air quality.
And so the boards, um, will also just provide guidance,
you know, if there's a department
that may need some feedback
or if there is, you know, if the board decides
that they wanna weigh in on, um, or, or, or, you know,
or just provide recommendations for something else.
It similar to
how we advance other boards in the city, right?
Our, our forestry board talks to a wide range of,
of folks in the forestry, both inside
and outside of the city to talk about
issues that are relevant.
Um, similarly, our shoreline advisory board, you know,
looks at, you know, projects that are putting forth
by the parks department or by our transportation department
and they provide feedback.
So I think it, you know, it's, the board isn't intended just
to opine on specific developments.
It's broader in scope just to advance, you know,
a discussion and really important, um, recommendations
to the city as we advance a wide range
of strategies, if that's helpful.
I think so. Um, VIN more,
You know what, since you said that I'm on a time crunch,
uh, uh 'cause I'm, I was, now I'm, I guess not as confused,
but my last question would be,
and did you say we gotta move to budget?
'cause I don't see that on my calendar.
No, no, no. I gotta treat this like budget.
'cause I gotta, I got a list of people, so
that's why I'm giving everyone 10 minutes.
Oh, okay. I got what you're saying. Okay.
So let me just answer this last question
'cause I, I, now I'm lost
'cause I thought the board was gonna be making
recommendations to, so now with that said,
I think that's I a new change, Oliver
and more that, that, that's part of the substitute. Yes.
O okay. So real quick then, company
about to expand or build new
advisory board, do all this stuff.
Now what happens? Please,
somebody just walk me through that real quick.
They done spent all eight 30 days,
or least 105 days based on what I added up.
And it may be more depending on what you all say.
So just, I'm gonna just use the 105 so they get
to the 105 days, all these reviews and our stuff like that.
Now what happens?
Angela, do You, do you want just real quick? Sure. Yes.
Talk to me what happens? Hundred five day review is over,
now what happens next?
Right. So just in terms of the board, i, I, I think
that the important thing to name is that, um, where, where
what is reflected in the substitute ordinance, the board
can, as a member of a community, right there,
there is still a community meeting.
And that is a requirement that exists today.
So that is not a new requirement.
And so the advisory board is welcome
to participate in the community process.
Um, but in terms of creating that formal place where, um,
so in the, in the previous language you saw reflected that,
um, you know, there the,
the board would have a formal review process it
for each individual project that has been replaced.
Um, we have instead, you know, are enabling the board
to provide broad recommendations
and rec on a number of different topics, you know,
just related to EJ and important environmental
and sustainability initiatives that the city is working on.
And then if they'd like to participate in the community
process, they can do that as well.
Okay, I got all that.
So we are 105 days, we still at 105 days. Now what happens?
The project comes before the city council.
That's all I'm trying to get at. What happens then?
So, uh, I I I would defer
to Patrick once this process is over, then, then the, um,
the project will go through one of two paths.
It will either go through the special use process
or, uh, to, to the plan development based on the existing
plan development triggers.
Patrick Murphy? I, I mean that's correct.
Just depending on the scale of the project.
Uh, if it triggers a plan development, then it would proceed
as any other project would through
a presentation at the plan commission and a hearing
before the committee on zoning
before a final vote by city council.
And if it otherwise is not subject to a pd,
then it would follow the special use requirements,
which involve a public hearing before the zoning board.
Well, let me ask this question then.
At what point are they able to file their plan development?
Can they do that concurrently with the, uh,
cumulative impact work?
So applicants can file any application from a zoning
standpoint at any point in time in the process.
They are not precluded from actually filing.
If they file a plan development
or if they're aware that they would trigger a special use
and they begin to apply for the special use
or proceed through the special use process, they would be,
uh, prevented from going ahead to the hearing until all
of the other intermediate steps are completed,
but they would not be prevented from filing.
Great. Thank you. All right.
Um, did you still wanna Thank you,
Chairman. Thank
You Chairman. Thank you all the more,
all 'em Ramirez,
did you wanna clarify anything or are you,
I, you know, I do wanna close,
but I just, I do wanna mention to my colleagues that
specifically this information
that we're providing on the board, um,
these are things that we're negotiating.
Um, this is actually something new
that the board will actually not be participating
project by project.
So it'd be simply advisory,
and then they'll be part of the public process
and the community engagement.
So I just wanna make that very clear that that's something
that we negotiated.
Um, and we're happy to move forward with that
so long as my colleagues agree.
Great. Thank you. All the women, all the bail.
Mr. Chairman. Um, just real quick, uh, first let me just
say that, uh, I'm probably the only
member in this body who actually, uh, worked with
Hazel Johnson, um, you know,
and, uh, worked well on her mission
of environmental justice.
And so, I mean, I definitely support the spirit
of this particular ordinance, but I do have questions, um,
because I do believe that, um, it's very important
that we understand that we don't move forward
with an ordinance,
which we have no idea from which the department has just
articulated how long this process is going to take.
Um, and so until we figure out how long,
you know, from point A to point B, that this is going to
add on to development, um,
I don't think we should be moving forward with this at all.
Um, but I do have a couple of questions.
Um, how many businesses do we expect
to be affected by this ordinance?
Before I hand it over to Patrick,
I just wanna acknowledge your comments, alderman, Beal.
Um, and you know,
as we are gathering more information on specifically the
timeframe for the completion of the CI study,
we will certainly be communicating that with, um, you
and the rest of this committee as well.
But I'll hand it over to Patrick. Mm-hmm.
Thank you. Uh, so Alderman, I'll,
I'll answer it in two ways.
One, like I was saying earlier in my comments,
e existing operations businesses that are currently here,
whether they were already established prior
to the current air quality ordinance,
or if they came online over the last three
or four years, they would not be subject to this
as they continue to operate
or if they reduce in service size.
Uh, and we will get information, we'll work with licensing
to get information through the vice chair on some examples
of those types of businesses who are operating here pursuant
to the list that was on the earlier slide.
But secondarily, I would not be able to guess how many
new businesses may be subject to this requirement.
We can look back at the last, uh, four to five years
of applications that have been filed
and processed pursuant to the air quality ordinance
as somewhat of a gauge,
but I, I could not guess
how many would be subject to it in the future.
Okay. Um, do we have any idea on
how many business will be thrown into nonconforming use
as a re as it relates to this ordinance?
So I do not, I, okay.
Again, I will work with licensing to get information on all
of the existing businesses that could have been subject
to this, had this regulation been in, been in existence,
but were one of those businesses
that predated either this proposed ordinance
or the current air quality ordinance.
If one of those businesses had been established
and was operating and was properly licensed
and continue to maintain their business,
they would not be subject to this in the future.
And were they to decide to reduce in size
or reduce in intensity,
they would not be subject to this ordinance.
And only if they were to, to decide to expand
or increase their operations
or the tonnage of material that they move,
or whatever the case may be, then they would be only able
to do that subject to the new ordinance.
Okay. So if I'm an existing business
and I'm looking to expand,
this is all gonna kick in even though I was
already in existence, correct?
Yes, sir. Okay.
So help me understand the, you know,
where I sus I definitely support
the mission of this ordinance.
It's not, that's not even a question.
The, but the question is, how are we going to continue
to ask business to come into the city
of Chicago when we keep putting these
hurdles in front of them?
For instance, we added tip wage to the businesses.
We're adding fair work week to the business, we're about
to hit the business with a potential $21 head tax,
and now we're going to hit 'em
with a communative impact study ordinance.
Help me understand why business will want to come to Chicago
with all these hurdles that we're putting in front of them.
Angela, do you wanna provide a, a response to that?
I do. And thank you for the question, alderman.
Um, I, I think it's important to name
that there is a process that's in place already.
Um, we have a process whereby
businesses are required, right?
This certain subset of heavy intensive uses are already
required to provide, um, feedback to the city.
Um, so there is a process that exists today, the requirement
for a community meeting, the requirement to provide the city
with two different studies.
So the way that I, I would look at this ordinance is this,
with an improvement for that process.
First and foremost, we're consolidating the study
and instead of requiring two separate studies,
this is one comprehensive study.
Um, in addition to that, we are also ensuring, um, I know
we've gone back and forth in the timeline here,
but one thing to name specifically is
that we have improved the timeline as well.
Um, let me give you a a clear example of that.
In our ordinance, the way that it's written today,
our air quality ordinance, there is, um, not a process.
There is not a timeframe for when the, the,
the reviewing department has to provide feedback,
uh, to the applicant.
That is something that we've changed.
So we've also created a process that gives more confidence
to the developer, more transparency to the developer,
and has provided, um, a, a timeline
of the developer that didn't exist.
So we have really considered, uh, both sides.
Again, I would look at this more of an improvement
to an existing process.
If, if we don't pass this ordinance,
there are still going to be requirements.
There are less effective than these requirements.
The requirements are now.
Um, and you know, I think we have
and have heard from business owners that have put forth, um,
you know, some of these environmental mitigation efforts.
It's a win-win for business and community.
We're protecting our workers in, in those job sites.
We are ensuring that the business continues
to remain a good neighbor.
And in addition to that, we are protecting the health
and the safety of our, our communities.
Okay. All of that did not answer my question.
And I'm gonna go back again.
If I'm a business, help me understand,
with all these hurdles that we're putting in front of them,
why would I look to come to the city of Chicago?
I
Hi, alderman. Thank
you for that question.
Jon Yu in chief of policy, um, just
to name businesses
and the jobs that they bring
to our city are very important to us.
And we do not believe
that these things are mutually exclusive.
That we can have a thriving city, thriving with thriving
industry and business, and a city where its workers
and residents near in
and around those businesses can breathe clean air.
Mm-hmm. And by protecting workers
and residents from pollute pollutants
that cause cancer
and asthma in, you know, disproportionately low income,
black and brown neighborhoods in this city
that have been pre-approved for pollution up
until this point, that we are actually doing a disservice
not just to the workers who work in those buildings,
but to the neighbors surrounding them looking for good jobs.
We do not believe that this is a binary choice
where you have to choose between a good j paying job
and the clean air to breathe.
And so we think by putting clear parameters
around the permitting and zoning process, we can do both
and make it clear
and easy to navigate what has been previously a,
a frustrating and, um, confusing
and long drawn out process where sometimes community members
or surrounding businesses don't find out about a particular
project until far later in the process.
So this allows, um, more transparency for our residents
to be engaged in the process at an earlier point.
Okay. Well, like, again, until we find out exactly
how long this process is going to add on to businesses, uh,
that are looking to, uh, locate within the city of Chicago,
um, you know, I think that's gonna be a deterrent
for businesses to locate here as well.
Um, well, we don't know
how many businesses are gonna be affected by this.
I guess we don't know how many employees will
be affected by this either, do we?
No. Sorry, I do not have that information,
but We'll, we'll, again, we'll work with licensing to get
what we can back through the committee.
Okay. Um, can we name the businesses that we have met
with, um, with, as it relates to this ordinance?
I'm not talking about community organizations.
I'm not talking about, um, you know, uh,
I'm talking about businesses that will be affected.
How many businesses have we, um, communicated
this ordinance to and sat down with that have embraced
and endorsed this ordinance?
Yeah, thanks Alderman. I, you know,
I'll let my colleagues add detail here, but,
and I know this is hard to read,
but that, that's the list of, um, engagement.
Okay. Engagement and endorsement are two different things.
How many have endorsed on this list?
How many have endorsed this ordinance?
We would have to give you that through the chair Alderman.
Okay. To be clear, I,
I don't see any individual businesses here.
I think these are organizations as well. Mm-hmm.
Okay. Well, I mean, you know, when I have the,
when I have the largest, um, organization, um,
like CAIC that's here, speaking in opposition
of this ordinance, gives me great pause.
Uh, because they have the pulse of all of their businesses,
large and small, uh, that's under their preview.
And, you know, when I hear them saying
that this is gonna be, um,
it's gonna have a negative effect on their their members,
I think we really need to take a hard look at that.
And so I think this is another rush job.
Uh, I don't think we've done our thorough vetting on
this particular ordinance.
Like we didn't do it with the tip wage, we didn't do it
with the Fair work week, we didn't do it
with bring home Chicago.
All those things were all rush jobs,
and we didn't do thorough analysis.
We didn't do thorough research
and everything that goes along with, uh,
moving ordinances like this forward.
And I think that's a, I think that's a problem, uh,
because I think we're running businesses out of the city
of Chicago instead of asking them
to come into the city of Chicago.
And we're making it harder. We're making it harder
for people to, to look at Chicago as a place to be.
And so, and if they don't have jobs, they can't live here.
If they don't have jobs, they can't pay their mortgage.
And so those, those, those are just some of the questions
and problems that I have.
But again, let me just say it,
and I'm gonna say this for the last time.
I support the spirit of the ordinance. Okay?
Uh, but I don't see, you know, I mean,
my community has lived
with a foul smell off the Bishop Ford Expressway
for a hundred years, okay? And I'm
Gonna ask the folks to the gallery to remain silent,
please, so we can get through this. Thank you almond bill
And, you know, and that,
that foul smell is coming from water reclamation
and the drying cells, but I don't see
anybody shutting them down.
I don't see anybody doing anything
and boycotting water reclamation.
I don't see the department going after water reclamation.
You know, that is the biggest, that is not true impact,
environmental impact on the south side is water reclamation.
And like I said, if you drive down
to Bishop Ford any given day when it's 85 degrees
or higher, you gonna roll your windows up.
Alderman, I I I, I've given you a little
leeway on time, but I mean,
Are you, you ready? You gimme my
leeway, but I'm gonna finish what I gotta say.
Okay? Okay. Please do. All right. So,
Arms, please ex instruct the woman speaking out, uh, not
to where she will be asked to leave bail. Please finish.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so, again, I just wanna say
that until we have a thorough vetting process
of this ordinance, until we find out exactly the, you know,
how this is gonna affect businesses large
and small, we shouldn't even be even thinking about moving
forward with this particular ordinance.
So I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate everybody that's here to talk about this.
Um, I think we can get there,
but I think we need to take pause
and listen to some of the businesses
and come up with a common ground on this
ordinance before moving
forward. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, alderman Beal. Um, we've got a few folks
with questions here, so we do want to get through everyone.
I do want to get to the rest of the meeting as well.
Um, we have all the women do who will be followed
by Alderman Ccho Lopez.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the, uh, advocates in the city departments
for their work on this
and for having a community, well, a zoning meeting on this,
a subject matter hearing.
Um, Patrick, you know that in my ward, um,
and near my ward, I have, uh, rail yards.
And this ordinance seems to be, um, directed
to newly established uses.
If a rail yard wanted to, um, change the configuration
of their site, or, um,
buy some more land adjacent, does this kick in for them?
Well, it would be dependent on
what exactly it is they're doing.
When you talk about their change in their operations,
if they're in, if they're not increasing their land, the,
the, the physical property that they control,
and they're simply rearranging, uh, uh,
the rail lines themselves
or their operations on the site, then it would not be, uh,
it would not be subject to this ordinance.
They're, they're, um, terminals where cargo comes in.
Okay. So if the other part was,
what I was gonna add is if they are, do
Use the mic.
If they are adding in operations such
as a freight terminal or other facilities
or operations, that would be subject to the list
that was on the previous slide, then yes, those new
and expanded operations would be subject to this ordinance.
Let's say they're not expanding,
but they're just may be changing the configuration
within their site.
They're gonna do the same operations, same trucks,
they're just, you know, maybe moving things within
the development, right?
So, so we're at a, we're at a rail yard
or any other, uh, uh, land use that again,
was included on that list.
And if all they're doing is rearranging their operations
without increasing their intensity, uh,
or occupying more land, then no,
they would not be subject to this review.
It would only be on the expansion or increase in activities.
All right. And this ordinance then does nothing to
address idling of trains
in residential communities.
Alderman, Jared, Jared Pelco,
deputy at the Department of Environment.
Um, one thing I wanna flag here is that for better
or worse, as you probably know,
there's significant federal preemption of local control on,
on rail operations.
Uh, we'd be happy to work with DPD
and get, get you through the chair.
Um, and also with department of law, our assessment on, on
how this would, um, would apply to rail yards.
But, but for better
or worse, there's significant federal preemption
of local zoning and environmental regulations.
Okay, so this does nothing
Point of information, please.
Yes. Oliver and Moore, Yes.
To what would say she, she talked about idling, um, with
that, and I heard him say about railroads,
but that applied to like school buses and residential areas,
or that's something totally different.
That's totally different. We're talking about planned
manufacturing districts.
No, we're talking about rail yards.
Rail yards though, but Right. Industrial areas.
Right. Thank, Thank you. Continue.
All right. Um, environmental review.
What is the, what makes that, what is that, what
elements are in that?
Does that include, for example, noise?
Kate, would you like to answer that question?
Uh, Kate McMahon, policy director from the Department
of Public Health, uh,
noisey is contemplated under project impact number three.
Okay. Thank you.
And then the preexisting neighborhood conditions are
with one mile within one mile radius is
Correct.
Can you just direct me to that? In the ordinance?
That could be done through the chair.
I just couldn't find it as I was sitting here.
Um, happy to work through the chair with you, Alder women.
Um, we, it's not explicitly stated, um,
like the one mile radius, uh,
language is not explicitly stated within the ordinance.
Um, however, we're happy
to provide more context to that through the chair.
You say it's not in the ordinance, correct?
It's not written within the ordinance.
Shouldn't it be Up to consideration?
I think, yeah. All
Right.
I think it should be. 'cause you could apply.
If you don't want something, you can do whatever you want
to manipulate the boundaries.
Um, if you wanna make a case for something,
you should make the case within the boundary that you are,
um, suggesting
here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. All the women. Uh, we have Alderman CI Lopez,
followed by Alderman Burnett.
Thank you chairman. And, um, uh, thank you
to all the advocates and administration also
for hosting this, uh, very important hearing in the,
the fact that we are sitting here
and I see a number of meetings
and engagement processes, I think is important, that we,
that we, uh, do justice for the communities
that we impacted the most
by environmental injustices in the city of Chicago.
And in that, I wanna recognize the leadership of, um,
not only pail Johnson,
but uh, Cheryl Johnson that carries her legacy.
And I think it's very important that we put that
and the spirit of the legacy in action.
I want to touch on a few questions just for clarity.
Um, in terms of the, the ordinance,
will this be affecting just for the abundance
of clearing, uh, uh, clarity?
Will the ordinance affect existing operations or only new
and expanded uses?
It would only impact new or expanding uses.
Thank you. Seems that there's, uh, confus there.
So I think it's very important
to clarify that for the record.
And I, I, I, I hear a little concern about the,
the timelines that the establishing timelines.
Um, will the ordinance increase uncertainty
or actually having a permitting process
help us establish more clear guidelines based on
what we have and what this could do for us?
Yeah. So as it's written within the ordinance
that the city has, um, a timeframe, six months
to establish rules and guidelines for, um, this process.
And we intend to do so with
as much transparency and clarity.
Thank you. I said that
because it, it, I thought there were,
there were also some comments about not understanding
what this will, what, what problem will solve with this.
But I wanna use an example in, in my ward,
a a sacrifice zone that has been affected
because of lack of process.
Um, we objected to a, another cement plan that was planned
before my time, but there was no mechanism to evaluate.
So this will move forward in despite
of the multiple challenges.
And it has just only created more, um, more uncertainty
and more concern and outreach in the community
for not having a process.
Uh, now we're discussing now, uh, facilities
that don't even disclose their, their, um, their plans,
but yet things keep moving.
Um, so in that line, I think for communities like us
in the 25th Ward having a clear process,
certainly it is important.
I know that they, um, there has been, uh, um,
a problem of concentration pollution.
That's what I think that the clear, uh, I think goal here
and for our communities are urgent.
It is, uh, we continue to be a dumping ground of industry
and companies disclose half the information
and then continue to move on
unless there is a plan
that help us evaluate the health impact, uh, in terms
of the economic impact.
Just for, just for the sake of clarity, uh, for,
for the economic impact, was this something that came about,
especially around the conversations, I see
that you have a very robust process with this issue
of economic impact.
Can you describe, like, kind of tell us how that,
that was added just for the sake of clarity,
because I think that's something new.
Thank you, alderman.
Um, it's, it's a great question
and thank you for pointing that out.
Um, in the original, what was introduced back in April, um,
you'll note that there wasn't mention
of economic impacts in terms of that being part
of this criteria, um, for project evaluation.
Um, after, you know, months of engagement, um, particularly
with our labor partners, um, it was clear to us that
that was very important to them to have
that component written in the ordinance itself.
Um, so we made that change in the substitute to make sure
that that was underlined really clearly,
that we are also looking at e economic impacts in
that evaluation as well.
Thank you. I think that's very important that we under,
you know, um, we focus on the facts here.
The fact this is being worked for quite some time, uh,
at least I've been personally involved in these
conversations, that I'm glad to see some progress
as subject matter hearing certainly looks like a very
important step in that, in the right direction.
I see that this being a lot of conversations
with other stakeholders, and I'm glad
that we continue to do that.
One thing that has been missing in this conversation,
and I'm glad that we talk about economic impact
and the effect on potential, um, uh, projects.
One thing that often is not discussed enough is the impact
on water pollution, the impact on air pollution.
And I tell you, there's no money these companies can offer
or constituents, once that is damaged,
there's just not money in the world
that can help address when that happens.
So it is important that we, uh, that we address that.
My question in that line is, um,
in communities already facing high asthma rates,
chronic illnesses,
and I'll tell you, high incidences
of cancer rates in my community that have impact, people
that I know that I care for, these are my neighbors.
Um, how will these ordinance help ensure
that these developments don't add up those burdens
and the collaboration between the Department
of Public Health, not the new department of the environment,
that I think that is very important and I'm welcome
and thank the administration to do so.
So in that line, how will these ordinance
help, you know, in this burden?
And some of our communities like us
have been caring for a long time?
Thank you for that question. I think the, the most direct
and simple answer is we know that health doesn't happen.
You know, health impacts and outcomes don't
happen in a vacuum, right?
Um, we know that there are multiple sources of impacts,
especially when looking at, um, you know,
particular land use, use types.
You know, we know that we need
to be eval doing a thorough evaluation
and understanding that, um, all of these impacts, you know,
essentially affect people in different ways, right?
And we know that there right now are, um,
there's inequity in terms of what we're seeing in terms of
how health outcomes.
So we know that there, um, are communities
with more disparate, you know, outcomes.
Um, and we need to be very mindful of that in part
of this CI review.
Thank you. My final question, um, can you speak on
how the ordinance will help health impacts, um,
that have been affected?
You know, families in my community, for instance,
or industrial corridor is nearby schools.
A lot of our schools have been, um, close
to this industry for a long time.
We have kids that have tested positive on lead.
Like in Perez, you know, that's when I was,
before I was alderman, that we helped making sure
that these impacts, uh, don't continue to pollute clinics,
you know, so, uh, can we advocate for the real data
behind them, you know, to make sure now
that we have a department of the environment, um,
that has teeth, how we can help that these health impacts,
um, are mitigated.
And maybe you can speak especially on the facts on schools
and, and residential areas.
For us that community impact has been devastated.
And as you know, we're now, we're challenging, uh, a,
a permit for Fisk, a Fisk plan that has polluted us
for decades now.
They don't disclose the pa the plans
and now they wanna even go make even more money.
Yes. Um, thank you Alderman.
Uh, I'll point to on,
on what's showing on the slide right now, number two,
which is preexisting neighborhood conditions.
And that's exactly, um, to your point of making sure
that when we are evaluating projects,
we are also keeping in mind sensitive populations such
as a school or a daycare center, um, in the overall,
you know, decision making.
Um, we need, we want
to make wise decisions when it comes to land use.
And part of that is making sure
that we are also taking into consideration, again,
those neighborhood conditions before making a decision.
Thank you so much. And let me just end, uh, by, um,
emphasizing how important, how important this framework is
for communities like us that have seen no framework
or recourse to move towards an greener corridor
as it was promised to us, uh, over
14 years ago when the coal plants in
our neighborhood was shut down.
It is critical now that we have a department
of the environment, that we have a framework
that has not add to uncertainty quite the opposite.
It help us have clear rules of engagement
with the community and impacts.
And as we discussed the economic impact,
and we have been welcoming, adding that economic impact.
We must have a framework
that evaluates the historic impact on our health,
especially in overburdened communities, that we do not want
more sacrifice zones.
If some companies were fed, um, they were doomed, unfit
to operate in Lincoln Park, they're certainly unfit
to operate in the south side
or in the west side of the city of Chicago.
And we demand to have the same, the same guidelines
that apply for every corner of the city.
And I'm thankful for this hearing.
I think it's important that we work together
and I urge us to reach a compromise.
I hear the industry and I hear you,
and I think I've heard from many, many years
how there will be the doomsday when we put a fair
wage or whatever that is.
It hasn't, Chicago continues to be a, become a hope,
and we continue to do so because of ordinances like this
and efforts from Hazel Johnson to now Cheryl Johnson
and I recommend you for these efforts. Thank you.
All right. Thank you Alderman. Uh, SU Lopez. All right.
I have Alderman Burnett, and then I have two alderman
that have one more question, and then Alderwoman
Ramirez is going to close.
All right, great. Alman Burnett,
Thank you.
And to the team, thank you for putting this together.
I know you all have been working extremely hard to try
to come together on some solution.
Uh, you're tackling a, a big endeavor both in terms
of dealing with this environmental issue,
but also figuring out how we structure this in
the city so that it makes sense.
So a lot of my questions will be centered
around the structure of this ordinance
and how do we actually make an impact
and kind of getting some more clarity on the current process
and how this changes, um,
how the new ordinance changes the way things work.
So when we talk about this current air
and traffic study, at what stage do
developers or businesses go into these studies?
Is it after, is it a part of the zoning process as it is now
or is it similarly to way this is written prior
to they even go into the zoning process? Patrick,
Thank you Alderman for that question.
I'll hand it over to Patrick
All alderman. It, it would
be the same process that we have today prior.
I mean, it would, it would be a different process prior,
but the zoning process itself would
be the same as it is today.
And so currently
before they even come to zoning, they will go
and to conduct an error in traffic study separately.
And this ordinance will say, instead of going
to do those two studies separately, they will come in
and now do that as one full study and then come into zoning.
They would have to do that prior to being able to proceed
through their zoning review and building permit review.
So to what I was saying earlier to Vice Chair Lawson,
we would not be preventing anyone from applying
for zoning review at any point in time in this project, but,
or any time in this process.
But it may be that they're, uh, unable
to complete it from a zoning standpoint
until they finish their work with the other departments.
And that is, and I just wanna be clear for everyone
and for the record, currently that is the same situation
with the air and traffic review.
They can't complete a zoning review process
unless those two studies are done,
Correct? Correct.
Cool.
And so with that being said, I know we are,
there's already an outstanding question on
how long those studies take to date.
Uh, this process is, I wanna say, if we go back
to the timeline page in totality, around 140 days, um,
from beginning to end, is that just about right,
not including the amount of time it'll take a business to,
uh, respond to the community portion.
I'm just curious on, I know we we're creating this board
to review and they submit a recommendation to
the zoning administrator.
What happens if Patrick
and the zoning team say, Hey, we don't necessarily agree
and like this recommendation, how,
what is the actual repercussions of the recommendation?
Well, so I guess I, Go ahead. Uh,
Administrator, I, I guess I just wanted
to make a slight distinction on what you had said, uh,
or what you had framed.
The zoning staff, uh, does not have the expertise
of the other departments that are involved in the reviews
prior to the zoning, uh, the,
the zoning aspect of the application.
So we would not be, we don't today
and we would not under this proposed ordinance be, uh,
disagreeing with a recommendation
or a degree of mitigation that might be proposed
by one of these other departments.
However, to answer your other, your,
your larger question about
what would happen if there is an application that proceeds
through these other various reviews
and is, is, uh, recommended for approval, uh, with
or without applicable mitigation elements, uh,
but it fails to, uh, pass
whatever the applicable zoning reviews are.
Uh, if that project cannot receive its zoning approval,
then it would not be able to proceed.
But that would be the same as any other project today
that if something were to receive zoning approval,
but for whatever reason, it is incapable
of satisfying some element of the building code,
they would not be able to get a building permit.
Uh, so it's, it's not an issue of departments conflicting
or dueling recommendations.
All these applicants have to, uh, oblige, abide
by the restrictions and requirements of the various reviews
and the zoning staff.
The zoning examiners would accept, uh, the recommendations
that come from these various departments.
And our review would be focusing on the zoning elements
specific to whatever is proposed.
Understood. Appreciate it.
What I'm wanting to make clear is that when the zoning pro
or when the environmental process is conducted,
that there's actual action
that is gonna be made from these recommendations.
Uh, so to hear that your department will then take the
recommendations that stands on the environment means
that from these changes, there would be some type
of implementation if recommended by that board, uh,
that will actually happening happen with,
um, these projects.
So for instance, if the board review says, uh,
they want some type of mitigation for error,
or they want more trees on the lot line
or something like that, that is something that the zoning,
um, site plan would then have to consider.
Right. If there is a requirement regarding, uh,
landscaping or, or a setback
or some other type of mitigation element beyond landscaping,
uh, and that is then required of this applicant order
to proceed, then the plans that they would submit for review
by the zoning examiners and a hearing
before the zoning board, or a hearing
before the plan commission, the committee on zoning would
need to reflect those elements.
Thank you. I just wanna be clear, the,
the advisory board is not making recommendations
on individual projects.
That was a change in the substitute.
So they, they're gonna be speaking more generally, um,
about citywide issues,
but not reviewing individual projects.
So how does that affect this timeline in when it comes
to a project submitting for review then?
So to the chair's point, um, the
EJ advisory board, again, does not review
or evaluate individual projects.
So there is no, there, you won't see
that on the timeline, right?
Because that is not something that's included.
Um, now of course, the applicant, um, you know, is
required to review public comment
and comments made in the community meeting, um,
and write a report on those comments received.
So hopefully that clarifies a little bit.
So there's a process taken out that that was adding time,
but there's a process added
that sounds like it should be a shorter amount of time then,
uh, before project.
Understood. On the timing point,
and I, I get that the, the board isn't submitting a, um,
a opinion to other departments,
but effectively you're basically requiring the business
to now submit based off of the public comment
and what the responses are.
I'm just a little confused on how this flows due
and directly impacts the business.
You're asking how that
that may impact the business in terms of time them having
to respond to comments,
or Can you clarify your question? Sorry.
Y yeah, I, I guess I'm just confusing not just the timing
piece, but like the actual requirement of like
what they then have to do, right?
If they're going through the public comment section,
and then they have to then, uh, report on what was said
on the public comment and how they're going to address it.
And that is what they submit to the zoning administrator.
That is what they submit to, uh,
the chief sustainability officer who then, you know, has
that, um, I think on record, um, the reviewing departments
that review the CI study also have access to
that same report that's provided by the applicant.
Okay. Um, I guess I have a broader framework question
that I still have to, um, internalize
after understanding these changes.
Um, and so I guess when thinking about this board
that it's gonna have a larger impact, um,
what was the determinant on why 21 members?
Um, it seems fairly large for, uh, a board.
I just wanna understand what that scope is,
and then how are we looking at some of the criteria,
or the mayor might be looking at some of the criteria
for people to sit on this board?
Yeah, as, um, just a reminder, um,
and maybe a point to clarify, um, the board is up
to 21 members, so that is the cap.
Um, of course the, the board can look smaller, um, the, um,
the sort of dis like bifurcation I should say,
of community maybe versus non-community.
Um, you know, that is, we really wanted to make sure
that this board was representative of, um, you know,
communities that have been impacted
by environmental injustices.
Um, but also recognizing, you know, through conversations,
um, with our, you know, labor
and business stakeholders, that it was also important
to have that their voice also represented on this board.
Um, so we did include, um, from the
original intro version to now the substitute version,
there is an additional labor seat
that's now on the board as well.
So really, you know, reflecting over
that feedback and conversation.
Okay. Thank you. Well, I, I also just wanna say,
I know I've had extensive conversation over the last couple
weeks with your team about some of my concerns
and it seems like they were reflected in the
adjustments in the substitute ordinance.
So I appreciate you all for, um, working with myself
and other, um, constituents to make sure
that this is a inclusive document
that's gonna help everyone.
Uh, so a yield my time.
Thank you Alman Brunette, uh, we've been joined
by Alman Riley for purposes of quorum.
Also, all the women Clay has requested to attend the meeting
by remote meetings and provisions of Rule 59.
Alderman Viegas makes a motion
to approve all the women clay's request.
All in favor of say aye.
Any opposed say and ay opinion chair,
the have it all the women. Clay, you are with us.
Good afternoon all. Thank you, chairman.
Hey, neighbor. All right.
Um, other, and Riley, did you have any questions?
We're about to wrap the subject matter hearing. All right.
So I have a quick question from Alderman Lata. Still?
Still? All right, quick.
And then Alderman Vega, and then all the women.
Ez we'll close this out.
It's so quick. Uh, I feel like a lot of the feedback
that I've gotten, the constructive feedback I'll say
that I've gotten is, seems to be related to the CI study
required of the applicant, uh,
as described in 17 dash nine dash
0 1 1 7 dash G 0.6 dash a.
It feels, this feels like what I, I think I also saw more
of it described on eight in terms
of an elaboration on what we're looking for.
Can you elaborate on the feedback?
Do they want it to be more specific?
More general, because
what it doesn't feel like is cumbersome.
When, when I look at what's described here, like
as someone who'd like studied urban planning in grad school,
this feels like a class project.
This kind feels like even for a grad student, the kind
of thing you knock out in a month.
Um, what are folks looking to see
or not see in the CI study?
Oliver, we're, we're gonna pass it over to, to Kate.
'cause I think CDPH can offer some thoughts on that.
Yeah. Uh, Kate McMahon,
policy director of the Department of Public Health.
Thank you for the question, alderman.
Um, so in addition to the components which you see listed,
um, not on the slide up there,
but I know which slide you're referencing.
Uh, the health department in collaboration
with our partnering departments has been working
with technical contractors to really see
how can we standardize, so like what forms, what data books,
how can we link to city resources as a way
to standardize the process for applicants.
And then I would also note
that there is a rulemaking process contemplated in the
ordinance itself to kind of get this right,
because we want it to be transparent
to regulated business from the start.
And Kate, to have a rulemaking process is nothing
that is novel to this ordinance, right?
Like we do that all the time.
That's correct. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you Allman.
Alman. Vga, Thank you. Uh, Mr.
Chairman, we do have a rulemaking process,
but unfortunately does not come back
to the body for approval.
So the rulemaking process is
provided, we give that authority
and then it doesn't come back to the body.
So I wanna make, make that for, for note something
that we've been pushing for as a body.
Um, so there, there are, there are standards for
air quality and, uh,
impact studies, right?
There's professionals that do that type of business.
Um, you men is, so there's gonna be,
you're looking at creating an industry standard
for the cumulative impact reports.
Correct. And so what kind
of professional typically does that work?
So just a point of clarification, there are, um,
air quality standards, you're correct.
I mean, there are federal, state, um, laws,
which is in included in the, um, environmental review form.
And then what the city is proposing is to also just like, is
to try to make this as user friendly as possible.
So how do we have like data, books, data, um, examples
of whether is data that cities can,
or that applicants can draw from as part of their response.
So we're not creating, like,
we're not creating new laws other than the cumulative
impacts ordinance itself.
I just wanna be clear about that.
Um, what kind
of professionals prepare those cumulative, excuse
Me, I forgot that part of the question.
Um, so this is being looked at by, um,
subject matter experts, uh, environmental engineers, um,
you referenced, um, epidemiologists, data scientists, um,
and then, um, other professionals
who have expertise in air quality and traffic.
Alright. And then are there other cities
that have this type of legislation in place already
For the environmental review form specifically
that I believe you're referencing?
Um, we look to Newark as an example.
Okay. Thank you. And just one addition on that,
the state of New Jersey statewide has a similar process
as well, alderman.
Um, maybe you can share those with us
through the chair on the list.
That's getting quite thanks, chairman. Thank you.
Vie, I understand there's, uh, we,
there's some clarification needed on the one mile rule,
and then we will go to all the women Ramirez.
Yes. Thank you Chair. Um, I wanna just go back to, uh,
alderman Dowells question around whether, uh,
the ordinance had included language on the one mile radius.
Initially I said no,
but, um, to clear the record, um, it is als it is mentioned
and it's mentioned in section 17 dash
nine dash 0 107 dash G period six, uh,
dash a, um, where it indicates
that it will evaluate within a one mile radius
of the proposed project.
Should be on page 12 in the substitute.
Great. Thank you. All the Ramirez. Awesome.
Okay, good afternoon, everyone.
Um, I don't have any formal questions, um, for the body.
Thank you so much, uh, for working with me.
But what I hope in terms of my colleagues here today, um, is
that if you guys have specific questions about your wards,
maybe particular businesses as Alder Woman Dow did that, um,
you guys can reach out to us
and we can work together to do so.
Um, I wanna go over the slide of the engagement.
I really wanna thank the activist.
Um, you know, I wanna allude
to the comment about just research.
There has been research done since 2022.
Um, a lot of public engagement, a lot of socializing around
what we know today.
Um, aside from all the engagement, I think there was
reference to 25 meetings work that has been done.
Yes, exactly. Um, outside of that, you know,
we also bring people with lived experience, um,
such as Cheryl Johnson.
And I also wanna talk a little bit about my lived
experience in the 12th Ward.
Um, it's a privilege for me
to actually be working on an ordinance like this
because, um, as Alderman LaSpada had mentioned
my predecessor, um, when we think about time,
my community wasn't given any time.
There was no community engagement.
And, um, years later, we now have a mad asphalt plant, um,
that, you know, my community didn't want in
that location next to a school.
We can't provide new housing development
because of the mad asphalt plant
across the street from a park.
You guys know the story. And so, when I think about time,
I think about sort of the consequences, um, that people have
to live with for a very long time, other than the process
that we may be putting them through.
Um, I don't see them as hurdles. I see them as protections.
I see them as safeguards.
Um, and more importantly, it's important
to provide public engagement
and education, um, to our community members.
And so I'm really thankful that we've been able to sort
of standardize, um, the things that we know have impacted,
um, places like the 12th Ward.
Um, I also just wanna talk about the bottom line.
Ultimately, I would love for us to think about our economy
and our tax base
because we need to fund the things that we care about.
And I do believe that it matters how we get there.
Um, we can't solely think about people as a dollar sign.
Um, I think everything is very interconnected right now when
we think about jobs.
It's the people in my community,
in these manufacturing districts, um,
that are being attacked
by the federal Gov government right now.
Um, and so I'm very grateful for the things
that we've passed thus far.
I believe in these protections, I believe, um, that we need
to think about workers now more than ever.
Um, and I, and I wanna thank the business community
for coming today because you guys are a big part of that.
Um, we have a lot of battles.
I think federally and Chicago is leading in so many ways,
and so I hope that you guys can,
can be able to lead with us.
Um, I I also just want
to talk a little bit about the denial process.
There were, there's, I believe, um, Patrick, you mentioned
that there were 20 applicants that could have possibly gone
through this process within the five, the last five years.
The goal isn't ultimately whether it's a denial
or approval, it's sort of the long-term impact that those 20
businesses have had, um, in our community.
So I hope I, you know, for all alders
that you guys hear from our lived experience
and you guys use this ordinance as a tool, um,
and as an opportunity, um, I think for things
that maybe we are not thinking of, like
potential economic growth with great public health outcomes
and good public investment in the city of Chicago.
So I appreciate everybody in the box once more.
Um, and I think hearing everybody today,
I'm more excited than ever to work with everybody, uh,
to make sure that we pass this. So thank you.
Great. Thank you all. The woman Ramirez.
Um, that will conclude our subject matter.
Hearing Alderman Conway moves to defer this item.
All in favor say aye. May opposed say nay.
Being sure the ayes have it, the item is deferred.
We're gonna take a short recess just
before we do, um, a reminder that, uh,
city employees only in the, uh, on the floor today.
So any witnesses testifying
for private applications will be in the first
row in that section.
Uh, city employees testifying can be in the box.
All right, uh, we'll stand at ease for five minutes
and then resume the rest of the meeting.
Thank you.
All right. Uh, we're gonna call the committee back to order.
Uh, move on with the rest of the agenda. Uh, alright.
Uh, first up is document number oh 2025 dash
0 0 1 6 6 9 7.
I'm sorry, we already did that.
Next up we have two landmark designations.
The first is document number oh 2025 dash
0 0 1 9 6 6 5 in the 29th Ward,
the historical landmark designation
for the Fred c Beeson House.
Number four at 58 30 West Midway Park, we have Candle
and Han of the Historic Preservation Division
of the Department of Planning and Development to present.
Thank you. I'll do a very brief version
of this presentation.
So in August, the commission on Chicago Landmarks
approved a final recommendation for the proposed, uh,
designation of the be house at 58 30 Midway Park
built in 1920.
The designation was requested
by the homes owner, Adrian Navar.
The property was, uh,
is located in the Austin Community Area 29th Ward,
and Alderman Talia Farrow has provided a letter of support.
The home sits on a large lot
with the garage at the northeast corner.
Oversized lots like this formed a core of the village.
Henry W. Austin had established an 1865.
In the 1880s, Austin's growth accelerated
and architect Frederick r.
Shock was hired to design a train station,
a library, and a high school.
Shock's architecture helped establish the visual identity
of the suburb after Austin was annexed to Chicago in 1899,
the area around Midway Park maintained its suburban
character as evidenced
by the Beeson House number four from 1920,
built on the same oversized lots as earlier residences.
The home is an excellent example
of the Colonial revival style Chicago born architect.
Frederick R. Shock was a skillful interpreter
of popular styles and amassed a significant portfolio
of work throughout Chicago in its suburbs.
So in summary, the commission found
that the home meets the heritage architecture
and architect criteria
and recommends landmark designation of the Be House.
Number four, significant features
for the designation would be all exterior elevations,
including roof lines of the home and garage.
Thank you. Any questions?
Seeing none, all the Knutson moves do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed, say nay.
And the chair of the ayes have it. Item has passed.
Next is document number oh 2025 dash 0 0 2 0 4 6 3 in
the 34th Ward, the historic landmark designation
for Bankers Building at 1 0 5 West Adams Street.
We have Matt Crawford from the Historic
Preservation Division to present.
Thank you chairman. Um, I'm here on behalf
of the Landmarks Commission to recommend to you
that the Bankers building be designated
as a Chicago landmark.
It's at 1 0 5 West Adams in the loop in, in the 34th Ward
and Alderman Conway is in support.
It was built as an office building in the loop in, uh, 1927.
It was commissioned by the Adams Clark Building Corporation,
and when it was completed, it catered
to financial service firms a professional sector
that was growing in the strong economy of the 1920s.
The composition of the building is defined
by an exterior light court
that creates prominent wings at the base of the building.
Above this, the building steps back as it rises.
The shape of the building is a direct response
to Chicago's first zoning ordinance of 1923, which sought
to balance a demand for taller office buildings
with natural light at street level.
Architecturally, it's a fine example of the Art deco
with classical rev Revival ornament at the base.
It was designed by the Burnham brothers, uh, sons of, uh,
Daniel Burnham,
the celebrated Chicago architect and planner.
The Burnham Brothers designed, uh, the carbide and carbon
and carbon building on Michigan Avenue, one
of Chicago's best our deco skyscrapers.
This landmark designation is part of a,
of a proposed redevelopment of the upper floors
of the building, which aligns
with the city's loop revitalization initiative.
The, the majority owner of the building is 1 0 5
Adams Development, LLC.
This entity with city TIFF Assistance plans
to make a substantial investment to convert these,
the underutilized office floors into mixed income
residential units with an affordable component.
So on behalf of the commission on Chicago Landmarks,
I recommend passage
of the Landmark Designation Ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Crawford, almond Conway, anything to add?
Yeah, I'd only say that, um, uh, we're of course here to,
to confirm the landmarking of this building here today.
Uh, we approved the TIF financing
for it last month in in finance committee, uh, in, in the,
in the, uh, and by the full body.
Uh, as you can see, it's a, you know,
it's a big beautiful pre-war, nearly 100-year-old building
that probably should have been landmarked a long time ago.
Certainly meets all the, all the landmark, uh, criteria,
and that's why it's, uh, was approved
by the Landmark Commission
and supported by the mayor's office, DPD, uh, as well
as myself as the local, local alderman.
Uh, but sadly, this beautiful building is,
is vacant in floors 11 through, uh, through 41,
and instead we're gonna replace it, uh, over time with,
with 400 new housing units, of which 121 will be affordable,
uh, at a time when, when housing all over the city
and affordable housing is, is badly needed.
Uh, in addition to 300 new construction jobs, 44% of which,
uh, they've committed to 44% MBE, uh,
on those construction jobs,
obviously far greater than what's required.
So, uh, and it also, we also have a, uh, it's a owned
by a minority owned developer in Prime Group.
So it's really a fantastic project and I'm,
and I'm very excited for it as part of the
LaSalle Loop revitalization plan.
And I'd ask my, uh, ask my colleagues to, to vote yes
and confirm the Landmark Commission on this.
Great, thank you Alderman.
Uh, we have questions from Alderman Beal.
Mr. Chairman, I just have a one quick question.
Uh, you know, listening to public comment and testimony.
Uh, is this the building that has two owners?
Yes. Okay.
And, uh, I mean, have both owners agreed
for this designation?
I'll turn that over to Dan Kleber from, uh, preservation.
Yeah, thank you. Alderman Beal, there is a process.
Yeah, there is a process in the Landmark designation.
When we go through the process, we have
to ask every owner whether they consent
to the landmark designation or not.
And so we did that. Um, one owner, the owner
of the upper floors, uh, the majority owner has consented
to landmark designation.
It's, it's important to their redevelopment of the building.
The second owner, the owner of the lower floors, uh,
which is in foreclosure, um, they,
they have not consented to the landmark designation.
Now, that required us, the Landmarks Commission
to have a hearing where those two owners can present their
case of why this building should be a
landmark or why it should not.
Um, you know, Mara Georges was here earlier, uh,
and made a statement on behalf of the owner
of the lower floors of why they were
opposed to the designation.
I I really can't add anything to that.
She, she made her case.
Okay, so part of the public com, well,
that public hearing, when, when did that take place?
The hearing was, uh, I believe it was in,
um, September.
Okay. All right.
I'm, you know, I'm just, you know, always concerned
that when you have a, a owner, uh, well,
two owners in one building,
one is saying, you know, let's move forward.
Another one is saying, let's, you know, let's pause
and have further conversation.
I mean, has there been a, um, you know,
I guess this is a question for the alderman.
Have we sat down with both owners, uh,
to see if we can work this
issue out between the two of them?
You know, it is. Thank
You. Um, you know, it
is worth noting when this,
when this initially came out, we, you know, the reached out
to the, to the other owner
and there was no response for, for
a period of months on this.
And so that was what, um, was one of the things
that necessitated the ordinance that was put forth, um,
that passed this committee as well as
city council unanimously.
Um, and that,
and that ordinance, uh, in which my myself, um,
alderman Riley, as well as, uh, as well
as Steve Valenciano in my office, who is many of you know,
has worked in DPD longer than, uh, than Alderman Burnett
and Alderman Knutson have been alive, uh, brought that,
brought that ordinance together, which,
which passed without objection.
Uh, who, who are very August colleagues.
You guys are both looking at me like I'm insulting you,
but I, I, I think of you both as high IQ colleagues,
which I appreciate it,
but it, uh, you know, that was part of what, uh,
what necessitated that ordinance.
Uh, and you know, I've, of course I have spoken,
and that's of course what was in, in some ways litigated
before Landmark Commission, um, as well.
Um, so I, I mean, I, I've spoken on the impacts
that this project will have
and, uh, the status of the, of the owner
who has consented,
and how much of the building that they own, as well as what
that portion of the building will be, um,
will be turned into.
Okay. Well, I'm, like I said, I think it's just important
that we, you know, continue to work with everybody
because, you know, if we rehab the upper units,
but then they gotta get past, you know, how many empty units
or vacant units, is this process going to hinder,
um, getting those other floors
completed, I guess is the question
There? A comment from the
preservation staff to that?
Um, we, in addition to Alderman Conway, our office
as staff to the Landmarks Commission, really, really tried
to engage with this other owner over the course
of several months, and we really just didn't hear from 'em.
And we were given to understand from their attorney the
reason why they didn't engage with us,
because they're, they're losing
the property to their lender.
Um, so we, all of their objections
that they've raised didn't really seem
to be about the landmark designation itself,
but about the, the, their desire to be part of, uh,
plan development for this process.
Okay. They have not raised any technical concerns
that the project itself is going to be difficult for,
or the construction that will, uh,
be a burden on their operation.
They have not raised that to us. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. Alman Bail. Any other questions?
Say none. Alderman LaSpada moves. Do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Chair.
The ayes have it. Item is passed.
Uh, next up we have two fee waiver requests
for landmark buildings.
The first is document number
R 2025 dash 0 2 0 2 8 8,
the historic landmark fee waiver for the property
of three 10 West Concord Place.
We have Daniel Kleer of the Historic Preservation Division
of DPD to present.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman Dan
Kleber with the Department of Planning.
I am here with a permit fee waiver
for a property at three 10 West Concord
Place in Lincoln Park.
The second ward, alderman Hopkins' Ward Alderman Hopkins,
has provided a letter of support for quick context.
It is located in the Old Town Triangle Landmark District,
and the structure is indicated by the Red Star.
At left is an image of the property.
It is a single family home.
Um, the project consists of the removal
of the flat roof at the rear of the structure
and replace with the gable that will match the existing, um,
in addition to providing six new flat skylights per drawings
that have been all reviewed and approved by staff.
Um, and it's an approximately $30,000 project
and a $600 approximately permit fee that would be waived.
That concludes my presentation for this matter. Thank
You, Mr. Kleber. Any
questions saying none. Alman Beal moves.
Do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
Ensure the ayes have the item is passed.
Next is document number
or 2025 dash 0 0 2 0 3 2 0.
A permit fee waiver for the Griffin
Museum of Science and Industry.
Once again, Dan Kleber.
Uh, good morning. Uh,
Dan Kleber, again, department of Planning.
I'm here with a permit fee waiver
for a project at the Griffin Museum of Science
and Industry 5,700 South Saba Lakeshore Drive.
This is in the Fifth Ward.
Alderman Yancy's Ward, um, in the Alderman has
provided a letter of support.
Um, here's a specific image
of the LO location on the property itself.
As you can see, it is on the, uh, south portion
of the museum as represented by the Red Star.
Um, the project consists of, um, exterior alterations
to restore and remodel the South Portico entry.
Uh, primarily designed to provide, um,
far enhanced accessibility to the museum.
Um, there are also interior alterations
and new build outs for several proposed museum
exhibits at the main and lower levels.
This is an approximately $21.7 million overall project
and a $36,000 permit fee that would be waived.
This was reviewed actually by the Permit Review Committee
of the Landmarks Commission in February of 2025.
That concludes my report.
Thank you. Uh, questions on Lata.
Lots of question then. Just making a point.
I, I love the project.
I'm happy in a moment to make a motion. Do you pass?
I would say to the applicant hoping that they're listening,
that if you can afford 21.7 million improvement,
you can also afford fair wages.
You can also afford parental leave.
They know what I'm talking about
and I encourage them to get it done. Thank you, chair.
Thank you. All the in the spotted moves. Do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. The chair.
The ayes have it. Item is passed. Thank you.
Preservation staff.
Next up is large signs, over a hundred square feet in area,
24 feet above grade.
We'll hear them all together. I'll read the ward, followed
by the address and take a motion at the end.
First up is one sign in the 22nd Ward,
4,000 West 26th Street in the 27th Ward,
one 34th South California and the 29th Ward.
66 0 9 West Fullerton.
The 34th ward, one 30 South Jefferson
one sign each in the 42nd Ward located at 1 71 LaSalle
and 22 East Hubbard.
Three signs in the 47th Ward.
One located at 26 30 West Bradley Place
and two located at 2,500 West Bradley Place two signs
located in the 48th Ward at 53 18 North Broadway.
If there are no further questions by committee members, uh,
all the Burnett makes a motion to pass on the orders.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed Say and nay pending.
The chair of the ayes have it and the orders are passed.
Alright, we'll now move on to the map amendments.
In effort to ensure the committee meeting runs as smoothly
as possible, the items are
grouped together according to witness.
It'll be held in that order rather than ward order.
Alright, first up is item number a, uh, nine,
item number A dash 9 0 1 8 in the 27th Ward.
Common address is 32 50
through 32 56 West Franklin Boulevard, five 19
through 5 23 North Spalding Avenue, five 20
through 5 22 North Sawyer Avenue,
change request plan development number 8 3 6 to B three one.
Community Shopping District.
The item was introduced by the
Department of Planning and Development.
We have zoning administrator Patrick Murphy here to present.
Chairman Patrick, I'm
gonna ask you to sit in the front row.
Oh, sure. Yeah, You should have done that
for the last hearing too.
This is just the sun setting of a former plan development
that was, uh, that did not come to fruition
as far as having been built out.
Uh, and it's taking it back to the zoning designation
that was approved in the plan development ordinance.
And this is being done pursuant
to the authorities under the municipal code.
Great, thank you very much.
Um, any questions by committee members, alderman, brunette,
anything you wanted to comment on?
Seeing none, uh, Allman Viegas moves Do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Any opposed, say nay opinion chair. The ayes have it.
Ordinance is passed. Next up, we have five ordinances known
as the 95th Street Corridor plan.
The following five ordinances are a series
of map amendments in the sixth, eighth, and 21st wards.
I'll read them aloud. We will then hear one presentation
and take a motion for all at the end.
First is file number A 9 0 5 2 in the Sixth Ward.
Common address two
through 3 56 East 95th Street, 94 0 1
through 94 43 South State Street.
Change request is RSS one, RS three B 11, and B three one
and C 11 to a B two three district.
Next is file number A 9 0 6 3 in the eighth ward.
Common address is four 12
through 7 36 East 95th Street, 94 47
through 94 40, I'm sorry, 94 55 South Vernon Avenue,
93 45 through 94 43 South St.
Lawrence, 94 10 through 94 44 South Champlain,
94 0 9 through 94 41 South Champlain
94 26
through 94 38 South Langley 94 21
through 94 39 South Langley
and 93 0 3 through 93 45 South Burnside Avenue.
Change request is RSS two RS three B one one
and B three one to an RT four district
and A is file number A 9 0 6 4 in the eighth ward.
Common address is 94 49 through 94 65 South Cottage Grove
and 94 45 South Burnside Avenue.
Change request is C one two to a B two three district.
Moving on to file number A 9 0 7 0 and the 21st ward.
Common address is 94 43 through 94 47 South Green,
94 18 to 95 30 South Halstead
94 49 through 94 55 South Halstead
and 7 32 through 7 44 West 95th Street.
Change request is B one one, B three one,
and C one one to a B two three district.
Lastly, file number A 9 0 7 1 and the 21st Ward.
Common address is 6 34 through 7 24 West 95th Street.
Change request is RSS two, RSS three,
and B two three to an RT four district.
We have Jasmine Gunn of the Department of Planning
and Development to walk us through these changes.
Ms. Gunn?
Yes. Um, good morning
or good afternoon everyone for the record.
My name is Jasmine Gunn
and I'm a city planner with the
Department of Planning and Development.
I'm here to provide a brief overview of the planning process
that led to the 95th Street Corridor zoning
updates proposed today.
So the 95th Street Corridor plan was an 18th month long
planning process and adopted
by the Plant Commission in February of 2025
to help foster equitable trans oriented development
on 95th Street between Halstead to Cottage Grove.
This corridor has an unprecedented amount of completed
and planned transit investments,
including the $280 million renovation
of the CTA 95th Street Red Line Station completed in 2019,
along with planned improvements such
as the red line extension,
bus infrastructure improvements led by PACE and CTA
and in complete modernization
of the 95th Street CSU Metro Station.
The study was a community driven process
that resulted in recommendation, recommendations
around mobility, public realm
and development to guide future growth.
The planning process included an extension amount,
extensive amount of community engagement
that included five public meetings with over 1500 attendees,
focus groups, walking tours,
and the creation of the 95th Street Community table,
which brought together community leaders that acted
as project partners by advising, co-facilitating meetings.
And they continue to meet today to move the plan forward
and, um, complete implementation of the plan.
The proposed rezoning would align with the future goals
of the plan to limit future auto oriented uses such
as gas stations, tire shops along the corridor allow
for more housing diversity, near transit,
and increased business and economic activity.
The current zoning along the corridor is varied
and consistent and does not align with future community uses
and some allow auto oriented uses.
This ranges from RS two to single family to C dash one.
For commercial, the proposed zoning districts along 95th
Street include B two dash three,
which is neighborhood mixed use and RT dash four.
Um, to provide the most flexibility, consistency,
and align with the vision by allowing a variety of housing
and businesses options while minimizing
conflicts in the sixth ward.
The properties along 95th Street from State Street
to MLK Drive will be changed from a variety of residential,
commercial and business zoning to B two dash three,
which would allow for neighborhood mixed use
development in the eighth ward.
The predominantly residential zoned area will be updated
to RT dash four to allow
for higher housing diversity near the transit station.
And then the portion of the, um, the portion
of the corridor next to the metro station would also be
proposed as B two dash three
to encourage business opportunities.
And then in the 21st ward, the properties along Halstead,
which is a more commercial oriented corridor.
It's proposed as B two dash three
and then it shifts to RT four
as you move into the residential area of the corridor.
To view the plan and learn more about this initiative,
you can visit chicago.gov/ 95th.
And with that, I'll close and open up for any questions.
Thank you Ms. Gunton. Uh, Alban Viega.
Thank you. Thank you.
Uh, chairman, thank you for the presentation.
I'm just curious, I see in the eighth ward it was up up
zone to RT four.
Are there any, I think it's smart.
Um, given the fact Chicago State is right across the street,
is there any discussions
of future student housing along that corridor?
Um, that is a discussion right now.
Chicago State was, is a, obviously a major anchor along
that corridor and was a major stakeholder in the plan.
They currently, um, are going
through a request a proposal process
for student campus on student housing on their campus.
But we have had discussions of extending
that into the neighborhood as well.
Okay. Um, and the area not along the corridor
that's being rezoned to RT four is rezoned that
because, uh, it has a large amount of vacant land
and the most potential for change. Gotcha.
Cool. Thank you. Thank
You. Right. You got it. Uh,
almond bill.
Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to add my 2 cents into this ordinance.
Um, you know, I wanna thank the department, um,
and the commissioner for, um, you know,
having numerous meetings on this particular proposal.
Uh, and they continue to have those meetings
engaged in the community.
And I can tell you without question that, um, you know,
this is a community driven process, uh,
for this 95th Street corridor
and I just wanted to thank them for their hard work
and their thoughtfulness in bringing
this to us. So thank you.
Thank you. Thank you all the bill.
Any other questions By committee members?
Uh, seeing none. Other
Questions? Moved to pass
by Alderman Moore.
Thank you. All the memo more? All the memoir moves.
Do pass. All in favor, say aye.
A and opposed say nay P Chair. The ayes have it.
The item is passed. Thank you Ms. Gunn. Items are passed.
Items are passed. Alright.
We're on to private map amendments, which are on the bottom
of page, the middle of page three.
Um, we've got attorneys in the queue. Thanks guys.
Um, document number 2 2 9 1 0 in the fourth ward ordinance
referred 10 16 25.
Common address is 46 24 South Ellis Avenue change request RM
five residential multi-unit district
to 5.5 residential multi-unit district.
Uh, we have attorney Steve Friedland.
Uh, good afternoon.
My name is Steve Friedland with the law firm
of Applegate Thorn Thompson here with my client.
Uh, uh, a representative of standard communities Tra Dorson.
This is, uh, an existing 105 unit building
at, um, at 46 24 South Ellis.
Uh, standard communities is purchase the contract purchaser
of this building from Freddie Mac,
which currently owns the property.
It's in need of quite a bit of repair.
The reason for the zoning change going from RM five
to RM five and a half is that on the base of the building
there were, was basically arcade space.
There was, you know,
the building was cantilever ord over some space.
They would like to fill that in
to create more tenant amenity space.
Um, on the first floor, this project, when they acquire it,
will have a significant, um, input
of new dollars into the building.
So because the building already exceeded its FAR, we needed
to go to an RM 5.5.
Um, I believe you do have a letter from, uh, all alderman,
uh, Lamont Robinson on this already.
And we would certainly be willing
to take any questions the committee might have.
Thank you. We do have a letter from Alwin Robinson.
Um, I'm surprised 5.5 is enough.
Mm-hmm. Actually it must have a large lot.
It's, well, it it,
the building's about 44,000 square feet.
The infill is about 1800 square feet. Got it.
So it's a little bit on that lower level
that's getting it billed.
Okay. And 105 units that all remain,
All remain, no changes in the unit.
Still gonna be 105 unit building.
Great. Any questions by committee members saying none.
Alderman, Burnett moves Do pass. All in favor, say aye.
Any opposed, say nay P Chair. The ayes have it.
Item is passed. Thank you. Thank you.
Bottom page three is document number 2 2 9 0 3
in the 22nd ward.
Common address is 26 37 through 26 43 South Harding Avenue.
Change request. An RSS three residential single unit
detached house district
to a C one one neighborhood commercial district.
Uh, we have uh, Michael Ger.
Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Michael Ger for Rolando Acosta, uh, from the law firm
of Acosta Esgar on behalf of our fee,
our R four CLLC, the applicant.
And this is a situation where there's some buildings here
that have been in use for approximately 10 years.
And the zoning change is sort of a technical amendment to,
uh, make the uses conforming to the district.
We, uh, presented this to the little, uh,
village Economic Development Advisory
Committee who were supportive.
And, uh, alderman, uh, Rodriguez is also in support
and I can answer any questions.
Thank you. We do have a letter
of support from Alderman Rodriguez.
Any questions? By committee members? Seeing none.
All the women as moves do pass. All in favor, say aye.
Any opposed? Say nay. P The chair, the ayes have it.
Item is passed. Um, top
of page four is document number 2 2 8 4 5 dash T
one in the 40th ward.
Common address is 50 54 through 50 60 North Ashland Avenue.
Change request RS three Residential single unit detached
house district to B two three.
Community Shopping District.
Uh, once again we have Michael Esker.
Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Um, I'm here on behalf of Mackinac Development, LLC.
And the, uh, proposal here is
for a new five story building with, uh, 26 new units
at, uh, on, on Ashland Avenue.
And the, uh, as a preliminary matter,
however, there's a substitute plan and narrative
and I'd like to make sure
that was incorporated into the record.
Yes, all of 'em on the bottom is
to accept the substitute narrative
and plans for the type one application.
All in favor say aye. A right. Any opposed say nay.
Uh, the substitute is before us.
Thank you very much. The purpose of this substitute was
that after review, uh, with, uh, alderman Vazquez and
and his community process, the, uh, community wa wanted
to see little, uh, improvement to materials
and to the elevations.
Uh, there including some setbacks being added in
and those changes were made
and we understand the Alderman is supportive.
And I am available for any questions.
Uh, we do, uh, have a letter
of support from Alderman Vasquez
who appreciates the upcycling.
Uh, any questions by committee members saying none.
All the women Domos do pass. All in favor, say aye.
Any opposed, say nay. Chair.
The ayes have it and item is passed as substituted.
Middle of page support is document number 2 2 8 9 7 dash T
one in the 26th Ward.
Common address is 1138 North California Avenue.
Change request B three one.
Community shopping district to B three one.
Community Shopping District.
We have attorney Sarah Barnes. Thank
You. Thank you
Mr. Chair and esteemed council members.
Um, for the record, my name is Sarah Barnes
and I'm an attorney with the offices of, um, GKI del
Americas and Brodo, LLP.
I'm happy to be here this afternoon on behalf
of the applicant, Thomas Street Partners, LLC.
Um, the building that you see
before you, uh, was previously abandoned
and stayed that way for quite a few years
until the applicant came along and, um, restored it
and has actively readapted the first floor into
a community based inclusionary LGBTQ plus,
um, live production theater.
The, because this is such a community based theater, um,
for the past several months, the theater has been, um,
working on donations only, um,
and kind of operating in that capacity because
although the theater is allowed in the current underlying
zoning classification
and district, um, they would require a public place
of amusement license in order to charge an admission fee
for their, um, productions.
And in an effort to quite literally
keep the lights on at the facility.
Um, that is why we are here today is the zoning change is
actually not to change the underlying zoning classification,
but it's merely to seek that variation for a public place
of amusement license
because of the proximity to a residential neighborhood.
Um, because this was a, is a community based theater, um,
that has worked very closely with Alder Fuentes, um,
from its inception, we wanted to maintain the inte integrity
of the community based process zoning process,
which is why we chose to do it
as a type one zoning map amendment instead of going
to the zoning board of appeals for a variation.
Um, so towards that end, we have worked very closely still
with the community and other fuentes towards this amendment.
Um, and I believe there's a letter on file
or at least express acknowledgement of alter Fuentes support
of this zoning amendment.
Um, and I too am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you Ms. Barnes. We do have a letter
of support from all the woman er person Fuentes.
Um, I have a quick question, um, and then you can ask yours.
Let's say I calm down.
Um, is there a reason why a performing arts venue
wasn't an option here?
Is that, that's if it's a community based nonprofit theater
that may have, but if they're doing other things,
maybe not. Yeah.
Um, I think
because there is the potential
of also doing some other things, um, as the,
as the theater grows.
I think they might be even wanting to do some classes
and other things like that that they weren't allowed
to do the performing arts.
But that was a very good question.
It was something we explored.
It's more restrictive but it's
Not right. Yeah. Yeah,
we've definitely explored it.
Um, I think this theater wants to definitely grow
with the community, so we wanted to keep
that option available
All on spot.
Uh, might be a shade of the same question,
but how are they, just for my own edification,
how are they operating a theater without a PPA license?
Because they're not charging for
Well that's gonna make it tricky.
Okay. Yeah. Alright. Ask me. Natural
Is, like I said, this really the PA is truly
to help keep the lights on.
They are basically sitting on the floor
for their productions and it's a beautiful thing, but
Very cool. Thank
You. They're trying to grow. Thank
you
Too. Any other questions by
committee members sitting? None.
All the woman Harris moves due pass. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Say nay. The chair. Aye. Have it.
Item is passed. Thank you, Ms. Barnes.
Bottom of page four is document number 2 2 9 0 6 dash T one
in the 27th Ward.
Common address is 1480 West Huron Street. Change request.
An RS three residential single unit district
to RM 4.5 residential multi-unit district.
Uh, we have attorney Dan Lauer.
Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this is 1480 West Huron.
Uh, 2 2 9 0 6. Uh, T one.
Uh, EZMB is the contract purchaser.
Uh, there's an old frame building on the, uh, corner
of armor and uh, Huron.
And uh, it used to be a four unit, it's now used as two.
And, um, it's owned by the s family.
Uh, the proposal is RS three to RM 4.5 for uh, three,
uh, condominium, uh, units.
Um, the new building will be 44 feet, 10 inches,
which will match the, uh,
zoning across the street, across armor.
Uh, there'll be three garage parking off the alley.
We have the approval, I'm glad to say,
of the Akre Park Community Council.
And, um, I'd like to thank, um,
former alderman Walter Burnett Jr.
Uh, who held a community meeting, uh, this past summer.
And, um, we'd like very much to say thanks
to Alderman Red Burnett for his support.
Well, great. He'll accept it right for you.
Alderman Burnett, anything to add?
Uh, nothing to add.
Just, um, the community's excited about this.
The community group gave their approval,
so I am also in support.
Great. Thank you. All the women all moves Do pass.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
P The chair ayes have it. Item is passed.
Top of page five is document number 2 2 9 0 7 dash T one
of the 36th ward.
Common address is 2333 West Huron Street Change requests.
RSS three residential single unit district
to RT four residential, two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district. Dan Lauer.
Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, this is, uh,
application 2 2 9 0 7 T 1 23 33 West Huron,
uh, EZMB is they contract purchaser.
Currently the property used uh, two uh, units in the front
and a, uh, dilapidated coach house in the rear.
Uh, so the existing three unit will
be replaced by three new units.
Um, uh, we met with the Chicago Grand Neighbors Association.
Uh, then we had a community meeting, uh,
at a local restaurant, uh, with the neighbors.
Ultimate Vegas requires, uh, flyers to, uh,
the 250 foot radius.
Uh, it's a little bit of a wider lot.
It's 30 by 1 23, so it'll be three very nice, um, uh,
family sized units.
Um, there'll be three garage parking off of the alley.
So we'd like to say thanks to Alderman Vegas for his support
and especially to Raymond Valez of the 36th Ward.
Thank you. Um, did I hear you correctly
that you're tearing down a coach house?
Yes. I'll try not to be offended.
Okay. Vin, anything you wanna add on this?
No. Mr. Chairman, this org this development came in front
of the Chicago Grand Neighborhoods Associations
and they support it, so I asked
my colleagues to support it as
Well. Great. And
kudos to, uh, your amazing staff, Raymond Valez,
who spent, uh, a, a term here as well.
Um, no other questions. Uh, all Alabama spot moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Aye. And any opposed, say nay.
P The chair. The ayes have it. Item is passed.
Uh, middle of the page is document number 2 2 9 1 1 dash T
one in the 43rd ward.
Ordinance referred 10 16 25.
Common address is 9 3 5 West Willow Street. Change request.
RT four, residential two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district
to RM five residential multi-unit district.
Uh, once again Dan Lauer.
Truman, uh, loss. This is, uh,
2 2 9 1 1 T 1 9 3 5 West Willow.
Mr. And Mrs.
Um, John, uh,
and Jenny Park are the contract purchasers of this property.
And the proposal is to go from RT four to RM four, uh,
RM five, pardon me, to construct two single family homes
that'll be occupied by the park family and their children.
Uh, this is the corner of, uh, Willow and Bissell.
Um, it's an irregular sized lot.
It wraps around Bissell and then onto Willow.
Uh, there's existing footings from
some years ago in the ground.
Uh, they're gonna reuse those.
Uh, each of the two new single families, uh,
for the park family will be 32 feet, six inches in height.
Uh, each will have a two car garage.
One is access from the alley,
the other is from the existing curb Cut on Willow.
Uh, we'd like to thank the Ranch Triangle Association
for their support and, uh, thanks to, uh, alderman Knutson
for meeting with us for supporting this, uh, project.
Uh, and, uh, to his staff. Isabel Koria.
Thank you. I think we, uh,
we had all the men Nuon, but any questions?
Seeing none. All the women REIT moves do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Uh, any opposed? Say nay.
The chair, the ayes had, aye. The chair, the ayes have it.
Item is passed. Bottom of page five is document number
2 1 1 7 0 dash T one of the 25th Ward.
Common address is 2334 through 2336 South Horne Avenue.
Change request is an RS three residential single unit
detached house district
to B two three Neighborhood mixed use district
for the last time today, I think Dan Lauer,
Uh, Mr. Chairman.
Um, 2334. 36 South Horn.
Uh, the, uh, application is 2 1 1 7 T one.
There is a substitute narrative in plans.
I don't have that in my notes, so I just want
to confirm with sub.
Good to go. Alright.
Uh, alderman Conway moves
to accept the substitute narrative in plans.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed, say nay opinion Chair.
Ayes have it substitute, uh, are before us.
Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh,
diamond Properties Group is the owner of this property,
has been for several years.
It's a zoning lot under 17.
17 0 2 1 9, um, seven.
Um, and it's at the southwest corner of 23rd place.
And, uh, ho Um, the diamond purchases, um, uh,
property, uh, which is a, a brick building on the corner,
uh, which was four units
and then the vacant lot to the south of it.
Uh, diamond Deconverted, um, 2334 on the corner from,
uh, four units down to three with a permit.
Uh, the entire site is 49 feet by 1 0 4 0.5.
The proposal is to amend, uh, the, uh, map from RS three
to B two three for both properties, both hazards
of the zoning lot, um, to construct five new units at 2336
with three off street parking.
Uh, the units will be set up as one F, uh, one R
and then, uh, simplex is above.
Um, the, uh, prior architect,
or the current architect is, uh,
Manuel Hernandez, who did a great job.
But, uh, we had some delays with, uh, the previous, um,
design professional.
Um, it's not part of the record, Mr.
Chairman, but we did agree with Ward 25, uh, for a covenant
to offer one unit, uh, at a reduced rent.
So we'd like to thank Alderman, uh, CCHO Lopez
and the his, uh, zoning advisory board
and the staff of the 25th Ward.
Great, thank you very much. Uh,
we do have a letter from Alderman Ccho Lopez.
Any questions but committee members say none.
Alderman Diego Vagus moves. Do pass. All in favor, say aye.
All right. Any of opposed? Say nay.
If the chair of the ayes have it, item is passed.
Thanks, Mr. Mr. Lauer.
Uh, top of page six is document number 2 2 9 0 5 dash T one
and the 30th ward.
Common address is 61 48 West Diversity Avenue,
28 21 North Novina Avenue change requests.
RT four, residential two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district to B three one.
Community shopping, I'm sorry,
change request is an RT four residential, two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district, and B three one community shopping
district to a C 21 motor vehicle related district.
Uh, we have attorney Matthew Ali.
Uh, good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee.
Uh, my name is Matthew Ali, an attorney with the law firm
of Akerman, LLP.
I'm here before you today on behalf of our client, Melley,
LLC, the applicant for this matter before you.
The applicant is the owner of the properties located at
28 21 North Melvin and 61 48 West Diversity.
The Malvina Avenue property has a current zoning
designation of RT four.
The Diversity Avenue property has its zoning designation
of B three dash one.
Collectively, the properties are improved with a one story
5,326 square foot commercial structure.
Historically, this property was activated
by a motor vehicle repair shop, uh, that was last licensed
for such business activity in 2015.
As such, the applicant now seeks to reactivate the property
through this rezoning to allow
for the motor vehicle repair use to resume
and in full compliance with the zoning code.
The ordinance before the committee would change the
properties, the property zoning designations
to a C two dash one district to allow for such reactivation.
The existing commercial structure will remain with cosmetic
and maintenance improvements to be made.
The applicant proposes no changes to the bulk
or height of the existing structure
and there are no residential units being proposed.
Prior to filing this application,
the project team worked closely with Alderwood
and Cruise's office who has
provided a letter of support for this type one zoning change
and which has been shared
with the committee for your reference.
Uh, we now request this committee's favorable consideration
and would welcome any questions.
Thank you Mr. Liley. We do have a letter
from all the woman crews.
Any questions by committee members? Uh, seeing none.
All thus bottom. Those do pass. All in favor, say aye.
Any opposed, say nay. P The chair. The ayes have it.
Item is passed. Thank you. Thank you.
Next two items will, will be deferred.
I'll read them in it's document number 2 2 8 9 9 T
one in the 28th ward.
Common address 24 0 9 through 24 11 West Congress Parkway.
And document number 2 2 9 0 0 dash two one in the 28th ward,
common address 24 0 1 through 24 0 7 West Congress Parkway.
These items are being deferred per the Alderman Alman.
Burnett makes a motion to defer. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Say nay. Making the chair. The ayes have it.
Um, this was deferred earlier. All right.
Middle of page seven is document number
2 2 8 9 5 T one and the 28th.
Ward Ordinance referred 10 16 25. Common address.
1313 South Tallman Avenue. Change request.
RT four residential two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district to RM 4.5.
Residential multi-unit district.
We have attorney Nicholas Fatus. Thank
You Chairman. Excuse
for the record.
Nick Fatus from the Law Offices of Sam Banks.
I'm here on behalf of Talman Street, LLC,
the contract purchaser of the subject property.
Uh, today the 2,660 square foot uh, lot is currently vacant
and the plan is to develop the property with the new, uh,
three unit residential building.
Uh, the applicant worked directly
with Alderman Irvin on this uh, proposal.
I believe he's e emailed and
provided a letter of support, uh, for the project.
Uh, it is a type one though to make sure
that we stay consistent with the plan presented.
Great. Uh, I spoke to Alderman Irvin this morning.
Uh, he gave indicated his, uh, support.
Any questions by committee members? Same. None.
All the woman Harris moves to pass. All in favor to say hi.
Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Chair. The ayes have it.
Item has passed. Um, bottom
of the page is document number 2 2 8 9 6 dash T1
in the 32nd ward.
Common address 2249 West Belmont Avenue. Change request.
C one one neighborhood commercial district
to B two two neighborhood mixed use district.
Once again. Uh, Nick Fatas
Again for the record. Nick
Fatas from the Law Offices of Sam Banks.
I'm here on behalf of the, uh, contract purchaser
BM International Builders Incorporated.
The, uh, applicant is proposing
to develop the subject property, uh, at 2249 West Belmont
with the new, uh, four story, six unit residential building.
Uh, it is a double lot. It's a 6,250 square foot total.
Um, and the plan is to provide, uh, six residential units
and six garage parking spaces at the rear.
Uh, we did work directly with Alderman Waga Spec's Office.
Um, there was a community outreach process
and it's my understanding that the alderman has
provided a letter of no objection to, uh, the application.
We do have a letter from Alderman Wapac.
Any questions by committee members? Uh, saying none.
Alderman LA moves to pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Say nay. P Chair. The ayes have it.
Item is passed. Top
of page eight is document number 2 2 9 0 2 in the 43rd ward.
Common address. 1120 West Fullerton Avenue. Change request.
An RT four residential, two flat townhouse
and multi-unit district to B three two.
Community shopping district once again.
Uh, Nick Fatas. Thank
You chair for the record. Nick
Fatas, law Offices of Sam Banks.
I'm here on behalf of the, uh, applicant,
the Chicago Title, land Trust.
Uh, number 10 dash 4 1 9 1.
The, uh, property owners actually owned the property
for over 25 years.
Um, the proposed zoning change would bring the existing
mixed use building condition into compliance.
It's a, uh, costume store on the first floor
and then residential units above No pro proposed changes.
This is simply a bring it into compliance, uh, ask.
Um, we did work directly with, uh, alderman Knutson's office
and I believe there's an email, uh, in support as well.
Great. We do have a letter from Alderman Kon.
Um, this is Chicago costume.
Yeah, I hope they had a good weekend.
Uh, but good month, right?
They've had my business certainly. Any questions?
Any questions by CUNY members?
Uh, seeing none, alderman Viega moves Do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. Chair.
The ayes have an item is passed. Oh, here we go.
Next one is document number 2 2 8 3 8.
In the 44th ward ordinance referred 9 25 25.
Common address is 36 50 North Clark Street Change requests.
B three two. Community shopping district to C one two.
Neighborhood commercial district.
Uh, I think for the last time today it's Nick Fatas.
Thank you again, chairman for the record.
Nick Fatas offices, offices of Sam Banks.
I'm here on behalf of the, uh, property owner grammar, LLC.
The, uh, the property owner is working
with a prospective social equity applicant
to establish an adult use cannabis, um,
dispensary at the subject property.
The, uh, zoning change would, is use space
and would, uh, is the lowest district to allow a adult use.
Can cannabis dispensary use at the subject site?
Um, as you know, uh, chairman, we've worked, uh,
for quite some time on the community
process, the outreach process.
We are, uh, negotiating a plan of operation
and we will, uh, continue to, uh, work toward those efforts,
uh, as we, uh, apply for the special use,
assuming today's zoning change is granted.
Thank you Mr. Fatas.
Um, any questions by committee members?
All right, lemme just say, since it's my word, we have gone
through quite a process on this.
It's been over a year plans for retooled
to better fit the social equity model.
Um, there's some mixed feelings in the neighborhood, um,
but overall, I think I have two other dispensaries
that have not had a negative impact, uh,
located in, in the area.
Um, and think this one will be the same.
So, um, with that, uh, all the viega moves do pass.
All in favor say aye. And opposed say nay.
And chair the aye. Have an item has passed. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Bottom
of page eight is document number 2 2 9 0 8 dash T
one of the 28th Ward.
Common address, 1 36 North Kley Avenue change request.
C one three, neighborhood,
commercial neighborhood commercial
district, and B three three.
Community shopping district to B three three.
Community shopping district.
Um, we have, uh, attorney Mariah Dino.
Thank you. I'm Mariah Dino with the law firm of DLA Piper,
representing the applicant in this matter.
Uh, the Michaels development company.
I'm joined by Andrea Keeney
and Michael Proja of the Michaels Development Company
and Bill Williams of KMW communities.
The, the development will be undertaken by a team comprised
of the Michaels organization, KMW communities
and true delta real estate.
The matter seeks to rezone the property from the C one three
commercial neighborhood district
and B three three community shopping district
to a unified B three three to facilitate development
of a five story building containing 51 affordable dwelling
units, ground floor, commercial space,
and approximately 12 accessory parking spaces.
The property is currently owned by the city of Chicago
and is vacant land.
It is adjacent to the CTA green line stop
at Lake and Kenzie.
The project was selected for funding
and support through a competitive selection process
initiated by the city's issuance of a request
for qualifications.
The site is a transit serve location
and will utilize the FAR increase height increase in MLA
reduction allowances for projects,
providing affordable units on site
and the parking reduction allowance
for transit serve locations.
The application also seeks approval
of administrative adjustments to allow the building
to be set back from Kedzie by more than five feet
to allow the street facing facades to be comprised
of less than 60% clear non-reflective windows
to allow the building entrance to the residential lobby
to face away from the street
and to reduce the number of EV ready parking spaces from 12
to seven, one of which will be accessible.
The application also seeks approval of a variation
to reduce the required 30 foot setback
for floors containing dwelling units to five feet.
The project will provide a mix of unit types at a variety
of affordability levels.
The project will comply
with the city's sustainable development policy
through a variety of menu strategies.
Alderman Irvin has submitted the letter of support
for the rezoning project.
We respectfully request your approval
of the requested rezoning
and are available to answer any questions.
Thank you. Um, we do have a record,
uh, from Alderman Irvin.
I just want to make sure, I think you said
seven parking spaces,
12 parking spaces in total.
Seven of which would be ev Ready?
Ev Gotcha. Okay.
I was afraid we had a sub that wasn't on our radar. No.
All right. Any questions by committee members? Same. None.
All the moves do pass. All in favor, say aye. All right.
Any opposed say nay. P The chair of the ayes have it a pass.
Thank you, Mr. Greeno. Uh, next is the top of page nine.
Document number 2 2 9 0 9 dash T one in the 30th ward.
Common address 35 30 through 35 36 North Milwaukee Avenue.
Change request C one one neighborhood commercial district
to B two three neighborhood mixed use district.
Uh, we have attorney Thomas Moore.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Uh, this is a, this property is vacant at one time.
It was a automobile use, um,
but it's been vacant for some time.
We went through a community process. Uh, the applicant, Mr.
Zaki is with me here today.
And, um, he hopes to build, uh,
a six unit, uh, building on, uh, two
of the, it's three lots on two
of the lots would become one zoning lot
and then a three unit on the, uh, other lot.
And, um, he,
although it's not, uh, there'll be a total of nine units and
although it's not, uh, does not, uh, qualify
for the official, uh, affordable,
um, ordinance.
Uh, he has, uh, agreed with Alderman Cruz to,
uh, uh, provide, uh, affordable units.
And, uh, we ha we went through a community process.
We have her support and we'd request your support as well.
Great. Any questions by committee members?
All on the spot?
One, just real quick, uh, Tom, what is the mechanism
through which y'all are doing the
affordability of that unit?
Pardon me? Oh, I, there'll be a covenant, there'll be a,
an uh, agreement, um, that will be
not officially in the city record, but it'll be of record.
Who are the parties that, that Covenant?
Well, Mr. Zamanski, the applicant and developer
and um, either a community group or the alderman.
I don't know. Okay. Exactly how that'll work out. Just
Curious. Thank you sir.
Thank you Chair. So
Just mean to put a point out, we've,
we've had this come up before where it's not gonna be an ar,
the a RO stock, but they will partner housing guy right.
With Catholic Charities
or some other housing provider to basically have
that unit leased for 30 years, right, right.
Or whatever the term is. Yes. Right. Any other questions?
Alright, say none. All the spot moves. Do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
And the chair. The ayes have it.
Middle of the page is document number 2 2 8 9 8, uh,
in the 32nd ward.
Common address is 28 52 to 28 56 North Southport Avenue.
Change requests to B three two.
Community shopping district
to a B one two Neighborhood shopping
district. Uh, Mr. Moore.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
This is one of those situations where, uh,
there was an empty bar
and restaurant had been empty for many years.
Uh, they applied to BACP, um,
but under a dash one they, uh,
could not keep the iconic old bar, uh, bar
arrangement that was there.
BACP would've had 'em tear it out.
Uh, so, uh, the community group, which, uh, was uh,
wanted a, this, uh, vacant restaurant to
reestablish itself, uh, was supportive
and the alderman was supportive of changing the zoning
to allow, uh, so that they could, uh, would not just have a,
uh, service bar but could keep the, uh, old, uh, esta
existing bar that was there.
And, um, but with the caveat, with the agreement
that we would come before you after they were fully licensed
and, uh, move to return the zoning
to the original dash one zoning, which we're here to do.
Thank MR one. What's the name of the business?
Uh, it's Betty's. Betty's table Or
Betty's. That's right.
That's right. Um,
I was at an event there a couple weeks ago.
Base looks great. It's all built out. Nice big patio.
Any questions by committee members? Say none.
All 'em and Burnett moves. Do pass. All in favor, say aye.
A. Any opposed say nay. P The chair. The ayes have it.
Item is passed. Thank you Mr. Moore.
Thank you very much. Bottom
of page nine is document number 2 2 8 7 9 dash T one
of the 25th Ward.
Common address is 10 30 West 21st Street change request.
M 12 limited manufacturing business park
district to B three three.
Community Shopping district. Uh, we have Timothy King.
Thank you chairman. Uh, good afternoon.
Members of the committee, Timothy King from the law firm
of Leach King and Clinger, representing O-K-I-R-E-L-L-C
as the applicant proposes to repurpose the 3,600 square feet
of the current structure to commercial space to use
as an indoor event venue.
Uh, the proposed indoor venue will serve
as a first class facility for members of the public
to host prearrange events, including
but not limited to weddings, receptions, fundraisers,
banquets, dinners, lunches,
breakfasts, and other gatherings.
Uh, floor plans have been submitted to the committee, um,
and we've worked extensively with the community group,
the intended app.
The applicant intends to work specifically with restaurants
and businesses in the area
to have them cater the events and work with them.
We've also, uh, worked with Alderman Scho Lopez
and enjoy his support and that of his staff.
Thank you. We do have a letter from Alderman Scho Lopez.
Any questions By committee members?
Seeing none, all the women Harris must do pass.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. P Chair.
The ayes have it. Uh, item is passed and best of luck.
All right. Top of page 10 is document number 2 2 8 7 7 dash
T one in the 27th Ward.
Common address is nine 30 West Huron Street.
Change requests is M1 three limited manufacturing business
park district to B two five.
Neighborhood mixed use district.
Uh, we have attorney Agnes Placa.
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
My name is Agnes Placa.
I'm an attorney with Law office of Jeff and Berlin, LLC
and I'm here to represent the applicant, uh,
9 3 0 hu in LLC in this proposed rezoning from
M1 dash two to actually Dr dash five.
First things first, uh, we did start this application
as a rezoning to B two dash five
and then department of planning in their wisdom.
And thank you so much to the department of planning
for guidance through this.
Uh, we realized that we are actually located in the downtown
designated area.
So we had to amend our application
and um, sub, uh, file, substitute ordinance
and substitute type one plans
and narrative, uh, to reone it to dr dash five.
It's still the same project, it's just that
because of that prior downtown designation,
we cannot have any commu uh, um, um,
neighborhood, uh, B District.
So, uh, here we are.
So with this I would, uh, ask that we are allowed
to proceed on that substitute ordinance to rezone
to the air dash five
and substitute type one plans and narrative.
Yes. So, um, alderman Beal makes a motion
to accept the substitute ordinance plans
and narrative for this type one application.
All in favor say aye. A. Any opposed say nay and the truth.
I have it. Ayes have it. The substitute is before us.
Thank you sir. And very simply, uh, unique location.
We have a frontage on three public rate of way.
Huron Sangerman and Superior is currently improved
with an older, uh, industrial building.
That building will be demolished
and we will redevelop this property with
a six story residential building with 35 dwelling units,
29 parking spaces.
Uh, all those spaces will be located in the interior garage.
Uh, the substitute type one plans actually show
that we have plenty of open space,
which is required in the downtown zoning district.
So, uh, 1260 is required.
We're providing almost 3000 square feet of open space
between the common, uh, use area decks and private garages.
Uh, this project will provide 35 dwelling units
that will generate seven onsite, uh, a RO units, uh,
de cis transit server location.
So we have that reduced parking requirements have
a space per unit.
Uh, because this is a very densely populated area,
the applicant is hoping to pro
provide a little bit more parking.
Hence we have optional relief
for the administrative adjustment to
increase from 18 parking spaces required
to 29 parking spaces to be provided.
Uh, because we have a substandard depth of this lot,
only 102 feet deep, we are also asking for optional relief
for some setback relief so that we can line up
with all the other existing improvements on the block.
We have been working with Alderman brunette.
We have been working with, uh, river, uh, west Neighbors.
Uh, we had two community meetings very well attended.
Um, everybody was in support of the project
and we are hoping Alderman brunette will also
express his support today.
And we are hoping for your favorable recommendation as well.
Thank you all and Burnett,
I've spoken with the community group there in support.
This project has my support as well.
I hope my colleagues will also support
Any questions by committee members.
Seeing none, all the Ramirez moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Say a p The chair, the ayes have it. Item is passed.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Middle of page 10 is document number 2 2 8 8 8 in the 43rd
ward, common address 25 0 5 North Lincoln Avenue.
Change request to B three three.
Community shopping district
to C one three Neighborhood commercial district.
Uh, we have attorney Daniel Rubal.
Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon.
Daniel Rubino for Trilia Kaplan Attorneys.
This is 25 0 5 North Lincoln.
The applicant is SamSam Restaurant Group LLC, doing business
as region's wine cellar.
This is, uh, a request for, uh, this change is, is pursuant
to a use only.
Uh, the applicant would like to open a wine shop
with tastings and service on the premise
that requires packaged goods and tavern license.
Currently, uh, it's zoned as B three dash three
and we're asking change to C one dash three.
The liquor code says at four dash 60 dash oh two oh B.
That in a B zone B three zone, no additional, uh,
consumption on premises licenses can be issued within 400
feet of any other type of liquor license.
There are exceptions, uh, for restaurants and hotels,
but this is not, uh, this is for a tavern with no food.
There are several other liquor licenses in the area
and no other relief is afforded to us
besides changing it to a C zone,
which would allow a tavern as of right.
Uh, alderman Knutson has been very helpful
and supportive, uh, and lifted a moratorium.
We met with the Wrightwood Neighbors Neighborhoods
Association who were also in support.
We received no notices of opposition
and are unaware of any, so we're asking that the, uh,
change be granted.
Great, thank you. Any questions by committee members?
Uh, sitting None. Alderman Vaga moves to pass.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
Any that chair? The ayes have it and the item has passed.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Final item for the day.
Uh, at the bottom of page 10 is document number 2 2 8 8 5 in
the 44th ward.
Common address is 5 5 4
through 6 2 8 West Diversity Parkway.
Change request plan development number 3 0 6, amended
to plan development number 3 0 6 as amended.
We have attorney Daniel Dowd.
Uh, yes. Uh, Mr. Chairman
and, um, members of the committee.
Uh, my name's Daniel Dowd.
I'm the attorney for Wintrust Bank.
It's their application
to amend the existing plan development ordinance number
3 0 6 to add as a permissible use finance, uh,
financial institution with walkup, uh, ATM.
The property is currently vacant.
It was the site of a fox trot restaurant.
It's been vacant for a while.
Uh, no real uh, uh,
modifications are gonna be made other than
the remodel of the space.
Uh, the, the, uh, wintrust will be adding up
to three walkup, uh, teller stations.
They'll be employing about five people.
Uh, and, um, uh, the, um, uh,
I do have the architect here in case there's
any questions with regard to that.
Um, thank you. No, this is, uh, this is in my ward.
I'll just say this. This is a pretty simple
change to a plan development.
The building's been there for probably 50 years.
Um, and, uh, it's, it's a highrise, right?
Right at the corner of Clark and Diversity.
Um, so, uh, good thing to have options as far as users go.
Any other questions by committee members?
Oh, this item was heard
and passed by the Chicago Plan Commission.
Thank you. Yes. And all in the bottom makes a motion
to incorporate all records and finding from that hearing.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed, say nay.
And the chair, the ayes have it records are incorporated
based on that, um,
all the women Harris moves due pass on this item.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay.
And the chair, the ayes have it and the item is passed.
Um, that concludes the agenda.
There being no further business
before the body, all the nette moves to adjourn.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed, say
and ay, we are adjourned.