Good afternoon, everyone.
I want to welcome everyone to the April meeting of the Committee on Housing and
Real Estate of the City of Chicago.
The time is 12:39. The meeting is called to order.
Today, we have 14 items on the agenda.
We will now
have a roll call to establish quorum.
Alderman Robinson.
Here.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Moore. Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Tabaras.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Fuentes.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitts.
Alderman Clay.
Alderman Mona Hoppenworth.
Alderman Hatton.
That's me?
10, including yourself, Chair.
There are 11 members present, including
myself, and we
have a quorum.
All right.
Rule 59's wrong.
Oh, acknowledge.
Oh, Clay just walked in.
Oh.
Coming in.
We can add Clay. She'll be the 11th. Yeah.
Clay's the
11th.
Alderman Clay?
There's 11.
There are 11 now. Eleven members present.
All right, how many rule 59?
We have three, Dowell-
All right, we have a Rule 59 request from Alderperson Dowell-
Moore
... Moore-
Rodriguez Sanchez
... and Rodriguez Sanchez to participate remotely.
Can I get a motion to allow them to be added to quorum?
Alderman Casada so moves. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
In the opinion of chair, the ayes have it.
All right. We have four speakers here today.
Each speaker will have three minutes to speak on all items on the agenda.
The first speaker is, and forgive me for the last name if
I pronounce it wrong, Tiffany Khoshaba.
How did I do?
Good afternoon. My name is Tiffany Khoshaba, and I'm the president and
founder of Eating Greens Urban Farm, and we're seeking the two city
lots in Englewood in order to proceed with
our urban farm that we have. We've already raised
$26,800 to continue with the project, to have the
infrastructure. We have the hoop houses, we have the soil, we have the beds,
and we have money for the fencing. So we're looking to be able to grow
the farm that we want. My background is in
farming, both traditionally and hydroponics.
So we're going to teach the community in that area to come
together to learn how to do traditional farming further, if that's
not something they know. And then we're going to teach them, even if they're in an
apartment, in a basement, wherever they're at, to be able to grow with
hydroponics so that they can continue to have that food
stability that every person should have.
So, that's our goal, and thanks for your time.
All
right, thank you. Our next speaker is
Jessica Jackson.
As it pertains to our housing and real
estate in our communities.
I went to this
excuse me, I went to this Trump rally,
maybe a year before he got in office or
something in Wisconsin. Anyway, he made a comment, and he
said that the problem with America today is that we
got too many people in charge of America that don't
love America.
And I find that to be true. Then when we come locally,
I find that it's too many people in charge
of our city,
and our county, and our state, that don't
love Chicago.
Then you bring it in even closer,
and I'm realizing that a lot of politicians that we have in
place in our communities, they don't love us.
And I've come to that conclusion because I'm looking at our communities, and I'm
looking at nothing seems to get better for us.
Nobody comes in here and advocates for us.
Nobody's saying anything about those excessive taxes,
property taxes, that hurt us.
Nobody's talking about
how Governor Pritzker
is appointing corrupt public administrators
that's stealing our real estate.
Nobody's talking about how South Shore has more
evictions than any place in the city.
Nobody's talking about how these vacant lots
have been vacant in our communities for so long.
These abandoned buildings been over there for so long,
collecting trash in front of them like
this. Nobody's talking about our
issuesBecause there's no love for
us. And you know that everybody knows we exist because
everybody uses our plight to get ahead.
Everybody uses our slogans. Everybody uses our
heroes. Everybody uses our statistics.
So it's not that people don't know, it's a lack of love, and that's got to
be addressed now in this upcoming election.
We got to get people in the seat that love us, at least have enough decency
to act like you do.
But this constant thing of how we're paying and
paying and paying and paying,
but we're not getting anything. Everything is going to
everybody but us.
That's going to stop. It's going to stop. It's just going to stop.
People like Robinson and Burnett, you're going to learn to pay
attention when people are talking or you going to get that seat.
You're going to re-
Thank you. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Good afternoon.
Just looking at the empty seats,
and there's more aldermen here and
bureaucrats here than it is
ordinary citizens.
So I've come to the conclusion
that the people in the city of Chicago
deserve the government they get. And like Ms.
Jackson was talking about
how disrespectful these aldermen are
to the citizens.
Now I'm speaking, and they're over here talking to each other.
And it's a reflection of you, sir,
because you're supposed to
be the chairman, and you're supposed to tell them that it's
unacceptable behavior.
And you're supposed to hit our--
Order here.
Order in here. Stop it!
Stop it.
As I was saying, it's very disrespectful
when a citizen come, "Citizen, Mr.
Blakemore," "A citizen, Ms.
Jackson."
We are your
citizen, and your job is to serve us,
to respect us,
and to help us.
You shouldn't think that you are above citizen
George.
And
as bad as these old corrupt,
Burt and all of them, Burt would never let his meeting goes
like that. He would hit on that thing.
Order here. That's your job to check.
You're supposed to. I shouldn't have to check this.
You're supposed to check this. See?
We've not had this here because these are our
citizens that we are serving here.
This is completely out of control here.
And the reason it is out of control, where are the people?
So all of you Chicagoans, you deserve the
government you get, and you get the government you deserve.
Incompetent? Maybe you're incompetent.
Non-professional? You are.
So you get what you deserve. Where are the people?
Where are they? All these empty seats.
They're not here because you choose.
You don't want them here. When you know better, you do better.
You
created this. "No, they didn't. Leave these aldermen
alone." Who created it? The people.
The low-life people.
So my time's up.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Our next speaker is Patricia Huerta.
I have a concern. My concern is I just went to McDonald's
to have a lunch,
and
this needy person needed food. He asked me if
I could buy him some food, and I didn't say anything. I just bought him the food.
The Hispanic person that hardly even spoke Spanish, I mean, English,
she told me that I wasn't allowed to purchase anything for that
needy person.
This American Caucasian man, he
may be homeless, but he spoke better English,
excellent English, than that Hispanic person that could
hardly even speak English.
That reminded me of Angie Guerrero
Cuellar.
It says right here regarding annual report on
homeless and affordable housing.
And I remember when I went to meet with Angie Guerrero Cuellar, our state
representative, she stated,
"I only help the Hispanics."
My thing is, when I saw this today at 12:00 noon when
I went to eat something, and for that
Hispanic to tell me that I wasn't allowed
to purchase food for a needy
Caucasian, 100% American,
that got me worried. I'm
likeThese politicians,
aldermen, Hispanics, are they thinking the same
way as Angie Guerrero Cuellar, that they only
help the Hispanics?
That is a concern for me.
Thank you.
Housings. Why is it that suddenly all
these immigrants came, and there was housings for everybody,
the majority, 90%, and now suddenly they're
gone, and there's no housing for the rest of the people that are here?
What's going on? Are you just giving these housings to
only Hispanic people?
I don't think that's fair. And this Hispanic told me.
He showed me a bulletin. We are taking over Chicago,
Illinois. And what I'm seeing, that's what it looks
like it's happening. I got so upset today when
this Hispanic told me I wasn't allowed to purchase food
for a needy, hungry person.
Housing. And she's right. You guys are what?
Doing this only for the Hispanics?
There should be some more
other nationalities seeing where these housings are
going to.
Thank you very much for your comments.
This concludes our public comment section.
I want to also recognize Alder Member Annette for the purpose of quorum,
and Alder Woman Taylor as well.
Our first order of business is the Rule 45 report from March 12,
2026, which was emailed and handed out to committee members.
Can I get a motion to recommend approval of this report?
So moved by Alder Woman Mitts. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The Rule 45 report has been approved.
And now we'll move on with the items in front of the committee.
Item number one is Ordinance
2026-0024-022,
Amendment of Municipal Code Chapter 2-4 by adding Section
2-4130 regarding the annual report on
homelessness and affordable housing.
This item will be held in committee until May 2026
so that we can hold briefings and respond to concerns from committee members.
Item number two is Ordinance
2026-0024-039,
first amendment to lease agreement with
8700 Building LLC for property at
8650 South Commercial Avenue. Merit Solis from the Department of
Fleet and Facility Management is here to testify on this
ordinance. Thank you, Merit.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, honorable chairman and members of the committee.
Excuse me. For the record, my name is Merit Solis on behalf of the Department of
Fleet and Facility Management.
The department is requesting
authorization to renew the lease agreement with
8700 Building LLC for continued use by the
Department of Family and Support Services, Southside Community Service
Center. The property is located in the 10th Ward
and Alderman Chico is in full support.
The lease area consists of approximately
6,300 square feet of building space and an
additional
13,375 square feet of parking lot
area.
The city has leased this property from 8700 Building LLC
since 2011, and the Southside
Community Service Center provides social services to the general
public and this location also serves as a
warming center during the
winter and cooling center during the extreme heat events.
The renewal of this lease would allow for the continuation of these
valued services at this convenient location.
The proposed term for this renewal is five years with a five-year
option.
If approved by the city council, the lease will be valid through
December 31st of 2033.
The annual cost of this lease is $64,200
with a 3% annual increase
during the option term.
The cost of this lease is fully supported by
designated grant funding and will have no impact on the
corporate fund.
And I'm here to ask for your most favorable consideration in the renewal of this
lease.
That concludes my presentation, and will be happy to take any questions.
Any questions by committee members? Alderman Taylor.
Thank you, Chair. Who is the LLC?
The LLC owner is, Rick Svabik.
Who?
Rick Svabik is the owner of the
LLC.
Who is that?
An individual.
Were you looking for...
You've been renting this... I want to do the math.
Mm-hmm.
It says 64,200 time 11 years,
correct?
Correct? That's how long they've been leasing the building?
Since 2011, yes.
Okay, so
that's a lot of money for a building
That we don't own. And I literally just got, two days
ago, a list of buildings that we paid a
lease instead of buying. And so
while I want to respect Alder Menchaco,
this makes no sense because while we still have...
I have six empty school buildings in my ward
that I'm having a hard time repurposing.
And when we actually get those schools off the tax roll, people
get them, and they're sitting vacant.
So there are a couple that actually aren't doing anything.
We got a budget deficit of a billion dollars.
This seems very wasteful, and it doesn't seem like
people are actually taking serious that, and this is no disrespect
to you, this is on the department as a whole.
And so I want to make it very clear of what I'm saying to you and what I expect to
see.
I'm going to be a no on every last one of these until we take a real look at
the buildings we actually own. Because it's one thing for you to send us
that. We don't talk about maintenance. Are we responsible for maintenance?
What are we responsible for other than renting?
So for this lease, the owner does take care of
maintenance, real estate, taxes.
The only thing that 2FM is responsible for is
the inside operations, so like janitorial.
But as far as HVAC-
So we pay for janitorial?
Yes.
How much does that cost? Because that's not included on this screen.
And so for all of those buildings, I want to see what we paying for janitorial.
And then you said it's five years, and every year, you said
a 3% increase every year?
During the option term. So it's going to be five years.
At the sixth year,
that's when the 3% increases would start, if we decide to stay.
And why are we doing five years?
That's what was decided upon during negotiation.
We are conducting a citywide study of all of our city
facilities, and if this location is
determined that it could be consolidated
during that five years, that would allow us to continue the operations at this
facility. And at the option term, or before the option
term preferably, we can determine whether we can consolidate to a
city-owned space. We did do a scan prior to
lease negotiations for renewal of that area to see if there
are any viable city-owned facilities, and there
just isn't.
And because this is central for the...
The services are for the community, it needs to
stay in
the community.
You said DFSS is in this building and it's a warming center?
It's a community service center.
So it's a community service center ran by the city?
DFSS, yeah.
Oh, it's ran by DFSS. How many buildings does DFSS have,
and where are they located? You don't got to get into that, you can-
Yeah, I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can give you that information
through the chair.
Please.
Mm-hmm.
And so I'm just going to say this for the record.
We have tons of buildings that we're not using,
that actually we're paying to maintain.
We cut the grass, we board them up, they get broken into.
And
so I'm confused on how we keep getting here.
And looking at the list of buildings that are on there, it
seems like the majority of those buildings that we actually lease, they're
downtown.
Why have the services downtown when the people are in the
community? It's very hard for people to get downtown, so I'm confused on
how we keep doing the same thing and expecting different expectations.
That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderwoman Taylor, and certainly we can, because I know we provided
that list last week, so we're happy to have a seat down and see what can be
consolidated and save taxpayers money.
So happy to have that evaluation with you, Chairwoman. Alderwoman Metz.
From the looks of the
photograph, look like I'm looking at a rooftop, though.
And you're saying this...
Is that a better picture?
I can provide a better picture of the building.
I don't see anything where somebody's staying there. I can't see that.
I don't see nothing but a-
Like the type of services that-
... a rooftop.
Mm-hmm.
I'm trying to see what's connected-
Yeah
... around there, why we're paying, since Alderman Taylor's talking about
the amount of money we're paying, what are we paying for? But I don't see nothing.
Yeah. This is just an aerial view. I can provide a street level view
picture.
Okay. And where was the grant funding coming from?
This is DFSS grant funding.
Okay. But it's more than just
DFSS is in the building, right?
Yes. That's the only department that occupies this building.
Okay.
All right. Thank you.
Wonderful. Thank you, Alderwoman Metz. Plenty information for Commissioner.
Can you clarify the grant funding piece?
Yeah, clarify that. I
got kind of confused. What does grant funding have to do with the lease?
It's paid through a grant fund provided by
DFSS.
I guess that's-
It's grant funding.
Yeah. I guess that confuses me. I mean, it's a lease, so why do we label it
that it's a grant that's paying for it? Are we getting money from somewhere else?
Yes. So I can confirm with DFSS where the grant
funds are coming from, whether it's a combination of
state grants or federal grants, but I can
definitely check back with DFSS and get that information through the chair.
Okay,
please do. Yeah.
Yes, we can have that information through the chair.
Mm-hmm.Any
additional questions?
Otherwise, can I get a motion to approve this
item?
So moved by Alderman Pitts. All those in favor say aye. All those oppose nay.
And Alderman Taylor, you'll be recorded as a no in this.
And we'll definitely, Mary, we can have a conversation about
that, an evaluation of the list that we've submitted to the members-
Yeah
... to make sure, and additional information about this item.
Yeah. And I recall last month, we had a
discussion about that, and we'll schedule something to further
discuss.
Yeah. Now that there's more specifics on the specific items-
Yeah
... we can have that conversation.
Okay.
Thank you. Oh.
Alderman Mitchell, and then Alderman Villegas.
Just to comment, because
as mentioned in the previous
meetings, I
agree with the sentiment from Alderman
Taylor.
And more so, she added the fact that we do have all
these
schools, and a lot of our schools are in good shape that are
vacant. And so to kind of have a deliberate
approach to housing different departments in the neighborhoods would be a
great idea.
Mm-hmm.
But somebody has to... We got to make that call.
I know that's
something. We would appreciate your help in putting that on the table.
For sure. Yeah.
Yeah. That's a good... I know that Alderman Taylor in the Department of
Community Education, maybe we can talk about other delegate agencies, that they
have assets that can save money to the city.
That services my ward as well.
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Alderman, any point of clarification? Otherwise, I have... Okay.
Point of clarification, then Alderman Villegas.
One was recently a shelter, and so we've invested
millions of dollars in those buildings.
Why not use them and repurpose it for that building?
As a matter of fact, I have two schools that are, no, three
schools that are more than three floors, and so there's plenty of space to put
departments, and we're putting it right in the community, which makes sense.
Mm-hmm.
Downtown is so inaccessible for a lot of our folks.
Hmm.
Parking then went up $10,000 it seems like.
And so why not make it, why not put those institutions in our community?
And looking at this, there is a building downtown that we pay
for. The rent is $16
million.
2 North LaSalle. I don't know what's in that building, but
literally the rent is
$16,028,050.
And so how many years have we been paying that?
And that's probably, there's another one on here for one million. It's downtown.
Like I said earlier, seems to be all downtown.
Hmm.
And so we feed downtown and we starve other parts of the community.
It makes no sense. We cannot expect people
to trust us
if we continue to do stuff like this.
And
there's another building, and this one is the one that's
out south. It actually is in the Eighth Ward.
It's $2 million that we're spending, and that's the rent
annually, so a year.
I don't know if it's... I was just about to say, do you know the building?
900 East 103rd Street.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay, I don't even see that one on here,
Alderman. I was sent the list because I asked for this
information through the chair. But this a lot of money that we're spending,
and what I would want to see in this report is how many years we've been paying
that.
Hmm. Mm-hmm.
Because what we spent on making other people rich, we could have made it accessible
to our communities and kept some of that money for ourselves.
And so we're talking about cost savings, how we save money that does not
hurt our community, because we know what we going to do.
We going to go figure out a tax or a fee to raise instead of just
repurposing what we actually have. And so I'll stop there. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. Point well taken. We'll definitely look into that and maybe
a year-by-year analysis of how much is
spent.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. Alderman Villegas. Thank you for waiting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So,
I heard my colleague from the 20th Ward talk about CPS schools.
So then are we looking at including property that's owned by
CPS to have a discussion on what their plan is?
Is that what I'm hearing from this committee?
That is, I think, one of the things that we want to discuss as an option, looking
facilities in other delegate agencies that is still connected to the city
so that we maybe can have some savings.
Okay. Thank you.
Mm-hmm.
Yep.
So,
thank you. So, with exception of Alderman Taylor,
the ayes have it in the opinion of the chair, and the
due pass recommendation of this ordinance will be reported out at the next City
Council meeting on April 15, 2026, and we'll follow up, Mary, on the analysis.
Thank you so much.
Mm-hmm. Thank you.
For the next item, we have a substitute ordinance.
The changes in this ordinance
included clarifying language, but will be explained by the
lead sponsor, Alderman Casada. I think everybody should have copies
of the substitute that's being emailed and handed out
in part of your packet. This item is our third item on the agenda,
is an aldermanic introduction, Substitute Ordinance
2025-0019933, Amendment of
Municipal Code Section
5-12-130 to require 30 days
written notice from landlords to rental agreement termination for tenancies
under six months.
Can I get a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Alderman Moore. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The substitute is in front of us. All committee members have also received a
one-pager.Also, in your emails
for Alderman Casada's presentation, we'll have him as lead sponsor
give the opening remarks, and Jonathan Rathenberger, supervising attorney for the
Law Center for Better Housing, will follow up with the specifics of the ordinance.
Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, I'm sorry. I just wanted to be added to the roll.
Oh, thank you, Aldermen.
We have you. I think that you were added as well.
So you're-
Thank you
... counting as a quorum. Thank you, Aldermen.
Okay. Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you. Go ahead, Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Chairman. In 2020, by a vote of 35 to 14, the City
Council passed the Fair Notice Ordinance to increase the notice period for
long-term renters when landlords decide not to renew their lease,
to end a month-to-month tenancy, or to raise their rent.
The increased notice period is to give tenants more time
to find housing and to avoid having an eviction on their
record, which we know can be very damaging for tenants.
So last year, attorneys at the Law Center for Better Housing reached out to my
office to share their experience representing tenants in eviction
court. Several experiences with judges asserting that
landlords could file for eviction after giving notice to not renew,
but before end of the notice period, as long as the sheriff does not evict
before the end of the notice period, seem to have arisen in those
court cases. We feel that this was not the intention of the original
ordinance. And now that the tenant has to go through the court process, and
has an eviction
on their record, will make it harder for them to find housing
even though they've done nothing wrong.
So this ordinance simply clarifies what we feel was the original intent of the
Fair Notice Ordinance. It does not create any new rights for tenants.
It does not apply to evictions for cause, like
non-payment or violation of the lease terms.
This is not expanding tenants' rights.
It's literally clarifying what we feel was the original intent of fair notice.
The substitute ordinance that we just passed has no substantive changes.
The language was just amended to be more clear, specifying that if a landlord
provides insufficient or defective notice, that the tenant may retain
possession of the dwelling unit for the full period to which they are entitled,
starting at the notice date, and that a tenant may raise the insufficient
or defective notice in defense if the landlord attempts to recover
possession through an eviction filing.
So to speak more about this in detail, we have Jonathan Rathenberger, who is
the supervising attorney at the Law Center for Better Housing, to speak more
about their experiences in court and to answer any questions from the committee.
Thank you very much. Jonathan?
Thank you, Alderman. And thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to
speak with you today. So as the alderman stated,
the Fair Notice Ordinance was passed back in 2020.
Prior to that, leases for Chicago tenants could be terminated or not renewed at the
landlord's discretion, with only 30 days' advance notice, regardless
of how long they'd lived in their homes.
For most tenants, and particularly for seniors, families, and people with
disabilities, that was simply not enough time to find decent and
affordable housing, make the necessary arrangements for things like utilities,
schools, and medical care, and do the many other things necessary to relocate their
lives. This problem was especially apparent in gentrifying
neighborhoods where tenants who had lived in their homes for many years were being
forced out, so that the units could be renovated and re-rented at higher
rates.
By passing the Fair Notice Ordinance, the City Council, I believe,
wanted to give Chicago tenants the time that they needed to move with dignity.
Tenants who have lived in their homes for more than six months are now entitled to
60 days advance written notice before their leases can be terminated or
not renewed. And tenants who have lived in their homes for more than three years
are entitled to 120 days advance notice.
The existing ordinance states that if the landlord fails to give the
required written notice, the tenant may remain in the dwelling unit for up to the
60 or 120 days, whichever is applicable, after the date on which the written
notice is given to the tenant, regardless of the termination date that
is specified in the insufficient notice.
And during that occupancy, the terms and conditions of the tenancy shall remain the
same.
At the time that it was passed, most landlords, tenants, and their
advocates, and I believe the City Council as well, understood this language to mean
that if a landlord did not give the tenant the amount of notice called for by the
ordinance, they could not end the tenancy and start the eviction process
before the required notice period had expired.
Unfortunately, over the last several years, at least three different
judges in eviction court in the First Municipal District over at the Daley
Center, which hears all Chicago eviction cases, have ruled that the Fair Notice
Ordinance does not prohibit landlords who have given tenants insufficient
notice of termination or non-renewal from filing eviction
cases and taking their tenants to court before the required notice period has run
out. In these cases, the tenants had lived in their homes for more
than three years, and so they were entitled to 120 days notice.
And nonetheless, the landlords provided less notice than that and
filed eviction cases against the tenants before that 120 days had
expired.
The judges in those cases all interpreted the ordinance's statement that a
tenant who is given insufficient notice may remain in the dwelling
unit as meaning only that the tenants may not actually be put out of their
homes by the sheriff before the required time had expired, not
that the landlord had to wait to file the eviction case or that a case filed
without enough notice had to be dismissed.
These rulings ignore the fact that, in addition to the
difficulty of going to court, defending the case, all of those
things, they ignore the fact that once an eviction
case is filed against a tenant, the filing itself becomes a public
record that appears in tenant screening reports as an eviction, which results in
most reputable landlords denying the rental
application.And so while the tenant is technically
remaining in the unit while the eviction case is pending, they are not able
to effectively use that time to secure new housing and are at much greater
risk of homelessness because, when they apply for new units, that eviction is
going to pop up, and they're very likely to be
denied. We believe that the way these eviction court judges have
interpreted the ordinance pretty clearly does not reflect the
intent of city council or the understanding of both landlords and tenants and their
advocates at the time it was passed.
That's why the Law Center for Better Housing contacted Alderman Cuzzada's office
about amending the text of the ordinance to simply clarify that no,
landlords may not start eviction proceedings against their tenants until they've
given their tenants the required amount of notice, and that any eviction case
started too soon has to be dismissed.
The proposed amendment that we're considering today
makes clear that a landlord that seeks to recover possession of a dwelling
unit shall wait the specified period a tenant is allowed to
remain in the dwelling unit, as provided in Section
130J of the ordinance,
before any eviction action can be filed.
And states that filing the action too soon is a defense in an
eviction case. And, this language responds directly to some of
the language in a judge's opinion
that found that stating in an
earlier section of Section 130 that a case had to be dismissed if the
tenant exercised their right to cure meant that the city council knew how to say
that
something was a defense, and that a case should be dismissed, and that
the lack of that language in 130J reflects
intent. Which again, I don't think was the fact at the
time.
To make a few things clear, the proposed amendment does not make any
substantive changes to the notice periods that are required under
Section 130J. It simply clarifies intent.
The amendment also does not affect the landlord's right or ability to evict
tenants who have not paid their rent or have committed other material
violations of their lease.
At the beginning of 130J, it says,
"Provided that the landlord has not terminated the rental agreement under Section
130A," which pertains to non-payment of rent,
"B," which pertains to material lease
violations, or D,
which,
I believe, relates to
abandonment, I think. But, in any case,
and the law department may want to check me on that one, but
there is not a substantive change to the law
around any of those other areas. This is simply clarifying language as to
how the court should deal with,
and how landlords should deal with, cases where they have not provided the
amount of notice required under the ordinance.
And,
I'll stop if there's any questions from members of the committee.
Mm-hmm.
Is it okay if we go questions? Yeah. So we got Alderman Quinn and Alderman Moore.
Mm-hmm.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a
hypothetical.
The tenant
is served an eviction. They get this
120 days if they're there for three years
plus.
Let me get you a mic.
Inside that, using the 120-day example
inside that, if the tenant fails to pay
rent after that-
Mm-hmm
... what's the recourse for the landlord?
The landlord can then give the tenant a five-day notice
saying, "You've not paid your rent.
You have five days to pay the rent that's owed, or else I can terminate your
tenancy now and bring you to eviction court now for non-payment of rent."
So the concern
is the
owner occupied two-flat that has
a situation with paying mortgage and property taxes
inside that window. Are we incentivizing people not to
pay?
No, I don't believe that this affects any incentives not to pay.
Because as I stated, if the tenant isn't paying,
130J, in general, doesn't apply. If the landlord's
terminating for non-payment, it's under 130A, which is the five-day notice.
Okay. And, let's say there's a material breach of the contract.
Mm-hmm.
This doesn't pertain.
No. Again, that's covered under 130B, and that's specifically exempted
from the notices required under 130J.
So in that case, they would get a 10-day notice notifying them of the
breach and giving them an opportunity to cure it if it can be cured.
And if it's not cured, then after 10 days, they can file their case.
And why shouldn't I be concerned about that owner
occupied two-flat in
incentivizing people not to pay? What's my response
to that, to the constituents?
As I said, in the event that their tenant isn't paying,
the owner who occupies the two-flat has no obligation to
wait 120 days or any period longer than five days.
They get to serve a notice saying, "Hey, pay me in five days," or "Regardless of
any other notice that you might be entitled to, I can end your tenancy now, and I
can start an eviction case now."
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you. Alderman Moore.
Yeah.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. I think that answered my question,
because I think
you said, what are those numbers that the non-payment of
rent fall under? It's called what? 130 what?
That's Section 130A of the RLTO.
And that's something I would call for cause.
We usually state-
Yeah, that's right. I think we would refer to non-payment or material lease
violations as an eviction for cause.
Right.
What we're talking about now is evictions not for cause.
Cause. Right.
Yes.
Okay. And that's what I wanted to be clear on.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Moore. Alderman Clay.
Thank you so much, Chairman. I just wanted to get
clarity on provides insufficient or defective
notice. Can you speak to that? What would that look like?
Just to give clarity for any tenants that could be potentially
listening in on this.
Sure. So an insufficient notice,
as I understand it, would refer to a notice that does not
provide the amount of time that's required.
So for example, if the tenant has been in the property for
three years or longer, but the landlord gives them a
30-day notice, which is what would be required under general state law.
And sometimes we see people who have that sort of confusion.
And so that,
I believe is what they're referring to as an insufficient notice.
A defective notice could refer to a number of things.
Perhaps, they haven't directed it to the tenant,
perhaps they've sent it to the wrong address.
There can be a number of ways that the notices are defective, that they're probably
dealt with in other areas of law as well.
I think this amendment deals primarily with insufficient
notice.
Mm-hmm.
But, Steve, you may have more on that, I'm not sure.
Stephen McKenzie, with permission, Chair.
Okay. Yeah. Please.
Steve McKenzie with the corp counsel.
The insufficient or defective notice, Alder, would be
if the state law requires notices, as do we, to have a description of the
place. So you can't just say Tina Tenant, generally a
Tina Tenant of 123 Main Street, Apartment 5.
If it doesn't have that, it could be a defective notice because the
tenant would not know that this is my place.
The main key in any eviction, one of the main keys, is the
termination ends the tenancy. After the period of time,
in this case 60, 120 days, no
longer on that 61st, 121st day does the tenant have a right of possession
anymore. Which allows the landlord to then claim,
"I have the possessionary right. If you haven't moved, I may now file an eviction
under state law." So that is just to clarify to all the
judges that it has to be the proper notice as required by
state statute and the ordinance itself that allows the
tenant to have the full knowledge that it is my lease and my tenancy and my
possession you are ending.
Thanks so much, Steve. And then how
will this... I guess I'm trying to make sure that this information is communicated
to landlords and tenants, right? So that they
understand. Because I feel like as a tenant, as a
renter, you get your lease and it's balled up or it's
digital or it's flattened out, and they're not going to walk you through the
steps of what's in that. It is your due diligence to understand that binding
agreement. However, I think that with this change, it is something
that a lot of tenants and landlords should be abreast of.
So how are we planning on making sure that they are educated on this?
Chairman?
Oh, Alderman Guzman. Mm-hmm.
Just to answer my colleague's question.
So we have been working directly with the Department of Law and the
Department of Housing on this language.
So we would make sure that that's communicated through official channels, through
the city, and make sure it's on our website.
But then we're also going to be working with our tenant organizations,
our
tenant
legal organizations like LCBH. And we also do
workshops in our ward, to provide people with that kind of education.
So I think we would just work through our official channels and through our
advocacy channels to ensure that both landlords and tenants are kept abreast of
these changes.
Got you. Thank you for that. Just want to say congrats.
I think that this is an amazing amendment.
It really does capture something that a lot of tenants
go through every single day in the city of Chicago when we're talking about access
to housing, when our neighbors are here screaming about
the insufficient housing options and choices.
It does come down to some folks being excluded
because of a simple technicality,
that has not been interpreted clearly.
So thank you so much for working on this. It definitely has my support.
Thank you, Alderman Clay. We have Alderman Villegas, Alderman Dowell, and Alderman
Metz.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to
see if the
gentleman from the organization just could give me some good examples on all
three scenarios that are in the ordinance.
So I'm a
college student. I rent an apartment for a
semester. I enter into a lease. In that lease, it'll stipulate that I
have
30 days before the lease is up, I need to move out.
Is that the official notice, or is it a notice 30 days before
the lease is up, the landlord's then supposed to go say, "Hey, your
lease is up in June." I need to go there, give them a notice in May.
Or is the lease stated in the language in there that 30 days before the
lease is up, you need to move out?
If I understand your question correctly, Alderman, you're asking if the lease
itself-
Yes
... serves as a notice to vacate.
No. It does not. Leases for a term
always are for a term, right? They're for a year, they're for two years, they're
for six months, whatever they're for.
But there is generally an
expectation that the fair notice ordinance addresses that
unless the landlord says otherwise, the lease
is going to be renewed and the tenant's going to have an opportunity to stay.
And so the fair notice ordinance says, and what we're talking about today
doesn't change any of this. It says that the
landlord needs to tell the tenant,
based on how long they've been in the property, either 30, 60, or 120
days ahead of the end of the lease,
"Hey, I'm not intending to renew your lease.
I'm expecting that you move out at the end of the lease term." And then if they
don't do that, if they tell them, for example, if
they tell them 30 days ahead of time when it's somebody who's been there
three yearsAfter they serve that notice, that person is
entitled to remain in that property and continue their tenancy for
120 days from the date that they got that 30-day notice, regardless of the fact
that it says 30 days. And, what this amendment
is intending to do is clarify that the landlord
can't then just go ahead and file an eviction case after 30 days and say, "Well,
this eviction case took me three months, so now it's been 120 days,
and we can just go ahead and evict you," because of the effects on the
tenant of being in court during that time.
And, it was never the
intent of the fair notice ordinance to say landlords can go ahead and file eviction
cases and make tenants defend them in court,
while they're entitled to remain in the property and their tenancy is continuing.
Got you. So this,
as I heard earlier, this doesn't preclude
the landlord from taking action if there's a default or...
Yeah, so okay.
That's correct.
Yeah. Thank you. And I think that
the 30, 60, and 120 days, where did those numbers come from?
Is it just numbers that you guys decided, or is there like-
It-
... data around it?
Again, those are the existing numbers in the
ordinance as it stands today. So none of that is changing.
Those numbers, I think, are reflective of the fact that
it simply takes more time for someone to move from a property
that they've been in for a longer period of time where they've become
enmeshed with the community, their kids are in school,
they're living near their work, things like that.
So I think that was the intention when it was passed in 2020.
Cool. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And, this
language appears to make sense given the fact that there
is that trigger there for those folks that are trying to take advantage of the
system. So,
I think this makes sense. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Villegas. Alderman Mandao, can you hear us?
Yes, I can. Thank you, Chairman.
To the sponsor of the ordinance, Alderman Quezada,
I wanted to ask, I'm always concerned about unintended
consequences of legislation that we might
pass, and I wanted to know if the
sponsor has had any discussions with
both tenant organizations such as
MTO and
landlord organizations such as the Dearborn Realtors
or the Chicago Association of Realtors, and have both
of them signed on to this ordinance?
No.
But we have been in direct communication with LCBH, and I'm not sure if LCBH has
had any conversations at MTO. LCBH or Jonathan?
I don't know if we've had formal conversations with MTO, but we work closely
with MTO, and certainly, we inform them of what's going
on with us.
Okay. That's the advocacy side on the realtor side-- I mean,
on the tenant side. What about the landlord side?
No, uh-
Do we have letters of support from the Dearborn Realtors or the
Chicago Association of Realtors?
No.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Mandao.
Did we seek it?
Let me ask that.
Mm-hmm.
No. I did not have any conversations with them.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Mandao. Alderman Amits.
I think
Alderman Mandao was kind of asking the questions that I wanted to know
about,
given the fact that
you got to make the playing field level for both tenants and
landlords.
And I would like to see
the support from the landlords,
Metropolitan Tenants Ordinance and the
landlord,
before I move forward, because one thing is that
landlords need to know their rights too,
need to weigh in on situations. Because there are a lot of situations comes
up. It could be
either tenant faults or the landlord, but certainly you don't want to hold
peoples...
They shouldn't be held hostage from what I'm hearing a lot of them now,
where they're not getting their rent, or some paying rent and not getting
the service. So this particular ordinance is going to work
both ways, but you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, that's
all.
I'll let-
Yeah.
Yeah, I'll let Alderman Quezada respond, but before, I want to recognize Alderwoman
Harris for purpose of the quorum, and please, Alderman Quezada.
Thank you.
And if the panelists also want to share, please go ahead, Alderman Quezada.
Thank you, Chairman.
I hear you, Alderwoman Amits, that the situation is that what we're
not doing is adding new rights and we're not taking away a
landlord's ability to file for an eviction with cause.
What we're doing is clarifying existing language because the ordinance was already
passed. The fair notice ordinance, it's an amendment to
language to protect people who have fallen in these
circumstances where three cases have come before us.
And that's why we're not adding new rights, and we're not taking
away the
legal ability that landlords already have.
But, and answer this question for me,
the landlord don't have this information.
They haven't been even informed of it.
So
when they violate their rights,
they have money on the line, and it may pushes the time
back for them. And I know if I had somebody standing, I
don't want to be a landlord. I said, "If you don't pay me my rent money, you know-"
He's going, "I'm going to be so well, I want my money." That's all I know.
Yeah.
And I think that we need to consider that given
where we at today and
people's being able to pay rent, state of their income.
You just need to talk to both sides and then get a better
understanding on it.
We'd be happy to uplift those conversations.
Mm-hmm.
Thank you. Alderman Dowell, do you wanted to add something?
Yeah. I want to underscore what Alderman Messes said,
and what I said originally.
Yes, I hear that it's just making a correction,
and
so the judges don't interpret the law in a certain way,
granted. But I think that I would like to hear
from the
landlord side of the equation on what
a potential interpretation would be from their
perspective.
So,
I'm not prepared to vote in favor of this, Mr.
Chairman,
until I can get a
understanding from both sides of the equation. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Dowell.
Do you want to add something on the panel or Alderman Quesada
before?
The only thing I would add in response to the alderman's
concern about landlords having notice of their
obligations under the Fair Notice Ordinance, just that ordinance was passed back in
2020.
And there's been a lot of effort through Department of Housing,
to advise both landlords and tenants about their rights and obligations
under the Fair Notice Ordinance. That's included in the
summary and materials that are required to be provided with leases
to tenants by landlords.
And none of those substantive rights are being affected by the
proposed amendment being considered today.
It's also just anecdotally from my practice and the work of
LCBH, it's not been the general understanding of
landlords or their attorneys that they're allowed to file these cases
early.
And so this has been three cases where this has happened.
And we're not seeing a broad trend of people filing
early. So I don't think this would be a change in the
conception of rights that most landlords have.
This is just, again, a clarification to address those instances
where a judge is considering this language and interpreting it in a way that wasn't
intended. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
I agree. I think that in terms of having that clarification and codifying
things in writing, makes it easier, I think, on both ends.
We do want to dissuade from
miscommunication with things that are not in writing.
So in that sense,
if someone wants to make a motion, we'll be happy to engage with
landlord associations and so forth.
I do think in this case, the clarification is the thing in the best interest of all
parties involved. I'll be happy to continue working with any
concerns that landlord associations have.
So if I can hit a motion to move on this item, so move by President Fuentes.
All those in favor say aye. All those opposed.
So we got Quinn as a no. Anyone else want us to be recorded as a no?
I also no.
Alderman Dowell, Alderman Scott.
So with those exceptions, then
so move on this item. The
ayes have it, and the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15th, 2026.
We also want to recognize Alderman Waguespack for the
floor.
Item number four is ordinance
20260023450, designation
of 1229 West Courtland Street.
Also 1300 through 1422 and
1301 through 1511 West Courtland Street,
1940 through 2076 North Kingsbury
Street, 2046-2068 and
2041 through 2047 North
Southport Avenue, 1401 through 1443
West Dickens Avenue, 2084 through
2166 North Dominique Street,
1736 through 2082 and 1739
through 2077 North Throop Street, 1400
through 1440 and 1401 through 1433
West Armitage Avenue,
1503 through 1523 West
Webster Avenue, and 1801 through
1853 North Elston Avenue as low affordability
community in the 32nd Ward. And Alderman Waguespack is here
to testify on this ordinance. Go ahead, Alderman.
Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. Sorry to make you go through that long list.
I do have Andrew Scott, the attorney here, who could also answer any
questions.
This is an ordinance that
asks for the
zone here to be considered a low affordability area.
This would allow the
developer to
take on the Cook County Assessor's special assessment program,
providing a reduction in the assessed value for property of which
affordable housing would be constructed or rehabilitated in that
area.
The entire PD, which has been amended
recently, it's basically broken up into
multiple sub-areas within the property and that could be
further divided at some future point.
But, for this area, we found that the city
designates that 8% of the year-round rental housing units were
restricted affordable, and 13
in the Lincoln Park community area.
What we're trying to do here is, with the passage of the ordinances,
specify this areaAs a low affordability community to
allow the developer of residential buildings in the area to
benefit from that special assessment program.
This area was, as you know, the Lincoln Yard site.
It was primarily office buildings and commercial.
With the new plan development, we have switched it
to primarily residential units. So, the purpose
here is to make sure that we
build the affordable on site and
can basically benefit from that LAC designation.
But if there are any questions, I can take them, and Andrew Scott from
DLA Piper is here as well to
answer any questions.
Thank you. Alderman Taylor, and we have
the applicant here too in case for any questions.
Thank you, Chairman. What is considered, Alderman, affordable?
In this area, I think the
designation
for the low affordability community would
lower that threshold. I
don't know if he's got it up there.
Can't even read that. Andrew, I don't know if you were able to...
It's on? Okay. Sorry. For the record-
Sorry, Chair
... my name is Andrew Scott with the law offices of Dykema Gossett.
I appreciate the pitch for DLA. That was 10 years ago for me, but-
Sorry, Andrew
That's okay. No worries. To answer your question, actually, affordability can mean
many different things because built into the Affordable Requirements
Ordinance, you've got affordability levels all the way down
to 30% AMI, all the way up to 100%
AMI. But these numbers here are based on
rental units that are affordable to folks at
60% of the area median income.
What is the area median income?
I believe
last designation, it hasn't come out for 2026, but I believe for
2025, it was roughly
$80,000.
And so
the number of affordable units is what?
That you're seeing here. So what you're looking at right there, it's the first
phase-
Mm-hmm
... of the development. And so there
are a total
units in the project of 472.
Ninety-five of those are going to be built on site.
And so those are the affordable units. It's 95 affordable units.
So out of 220,
the...
No. So what you see there is building D2 and D3, two separate
residential buildings.
Mm-hmm.
And so on the left, you see D2. You've got total units in that
building is going to be 220. The total units in D3,
the one that you see at the corner, that's 252.
So there is a total between those two buildings when it comes to the rental
units of 472 rental units.
How much is the tax break?
So the tax break, it reduces the assessment in the
first three years.
It's the delta between the assessed value
today and when you put the property into service.
And so for the first three years, it's reduced to zero, and then it goes to
80%, 70%, 50%, and then it ratchets up to 100%.
Say that again.
So it's all predicated on reducing the assessed value.
It's no different from the other programs that the state enacted, I believe it was
two years ago, where if you committed to do a certain percentage of your
units on site, then they would reduce the assessed value
by a certain percentage. So in this particular case, in order to
incent developers to do all of the units on site,
as opposed to making the payment in lieu or putting them off site to
actually congregate them in the neighborhood,
you get a reduction of
100%.
Basically, it's a zero assessment for the added value
in the first three years,
and then it ratchets up to 100% of the added value over the
10-year period. And so it goes 80%,
70%, 50%, and then all the way up until you're fully assessed.
All of the units will be available on site, correct?
So you all are developing all of the units on site.
That is correct. What you see up there in subarea D,
the 90 plus
affordable units will be on site.
How many phases?
It's difficult to tell at this point because we just
don't know when.
For example, you can see in the upper left corner, kind of the northwest,
those are single family homes. Just to the right of those,
there's townhomes that are proposed there, and then you can see we've got a variety
of other
multi-story buildings. And so it's really going to be a matter
of
the demand and how quickly they can absorb the additional dwelling
units. So this is really the first phase.
This is the kickoff that is hoped to occur in October of this
year. Ideally, it gets built up over a five to
seven-year period.
Oh, five to seven years?
Yes.
Last question. I'm looking at F1E. What does that mean?
So
we designated subareas A through F within the plan development, just
to try to bring a little bit of order to the development.
And so F1 and F2 are, the F1 is intended to be
a medical office buildingF2 is intended to be a
residential building with a fitness facility on the ground floor.
I was just going to ask, what are the amenities that
come with this development for community members?
So the amenities, if you can see all of the green...
Can we go back to the former slide? So you can see all of the green space along the
river.
One of them is an enhanced river walk.
You may be aware that,
in a typical development, when you develop abutting to the river, you have to do
30 feet, and there's very, very basic requirements that have to be
done. The developer has actually widened that
out to 45 feet at some widest points.
A lot of landscaping, a lot of different opportunities for people to
enjoy the riverfront. In addition, you can
see in the center of subarea
D is an approximately two-and-a-half acre park. That's going to be a public park.
If you look below
building E4 and E3,
that's also a park area.
That's going to have a beach area. And then when you get between
E1 and E3, that's so-called Foundry Point, which is going to
be another principal park. You can also see the
bridge coming across the Chicago River.
If and when the 606 is ever extended to the east,
that will provide an additional connection to allow for
additional bike path, walking path.
And then finally, as you move up immediately to the west of
C3, that's another park that's available to the
public. And then finally,
south of the townhomes and then east of building C2,
is a children's play lot.
Who is the developer?
The developer is a combination of JDL
Development, a Chicago-based developer, they've done a lot of projects here, and
Kane Anderson, which is a equity
fund out of Florida.
That's all I got. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor.
Chairman, I was going to say, Chairman, when I can get you a copy of the state bill
that passed that references this as well, and then I'll get you
other information on it.
Thank you, Alderman Waguespack. Any other questions on this item?
Oh, Ald-Alderman Anna Hapworth.
Thank you. I just want to clarify that with the designation of a low affordability
community, you're required to
provide labor
to build. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Mm-hmm.
There will be a project labor agreement.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Hapworth. Any additional questions?
Otherwise, can I get a motion to move on this item?
I had a question, Chair.
Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Dowell.
Yeah. Hi.
Alderman Waguespack,
the ARO items, how many of them
are 30%? Do you know what the breakdown is going to be for
these 30%, 40%, 60%, 80% of
AMI at this time?
Andrew, I think
it depends on the phase, but I think, Andrew, do you have that breakdown now?
I think we
need to do a blended average of 60%, Alderwoman.
But I don't think we've landed on the exact percentages.
I believe that it's probably just going to be 60% AMI, given
the numbers. It's 20% and the way it works out, because you're allowed
to do fewer units a
smaller percentage than 20% if
you do a blended average of less than 60% AMI.
Okay. That sounds like gibberish to me.
Can you break it down for, like, a two-year-old?
So will you have 30% AMI on this
site, yes or no?
For subarea D, no.
For subarea D,
no.
That's the first phase.
Okay.
I don't know if you're looking at your computer screen, but that's the first-
Yeah, I am
... first phase of the project.
It will all be 60% AMI.
All right. And what about subarea D2,
I guess? That's the other one, right?
Correct. Both of those, D2, D3, are both going to be
60% AMI.
All right. Thank you.
There may be
developers.
Building C1, C2, all the other buildings that you
see outside of subarea D,
that's going to be up to the developer, and in conjunction with the
community, with the alderman, in terms of if they want to achieve
ARO compliance at a lower AMI, and therefore lower
unit percentage.
Thank you.
Alderman Anna Hapworth.
Can you tell me once again who the architect is?
It's Hartshorn Plunkard Architects.
I'm sorry, say it again.
Hartshorn Plunkard Architects.
Thank you.
Any additional questions? Otherwise, can I have a motion to move on this item?
So moved by Alderman Scott. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The do pass recommendation of this ordinance will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15th, 2026.
At the request of the lead sponsor, item five will be also held in
committee until further notice.
The remaining items on the agenda are from DPD.
Item six is Ordinance
2026-0024116, sale of city-owned
property at 6820 and 6824 South Lowe
Avenue to Eden Greens Urban Farms under the Chic Block
Builder platform in the 6th Ward. Meg Gustafson
from the Department of Planning and Development is here to testify on this
ordinance. Thank you, Meg.
Great. Thank you so much.
For the record, Meg Gustafson, Department of Planning and Development.
I have a handful of land sales here before you today.
The first one is an urban ag land sale.
This is located-This is for Eden
Greens Urban Farm. It's located in the Sixth Ward.
We have Alderman Hall's strong support.
The address is 6820-24 South Lowe.
It's two pins. They total about 16,000 square feet,
so it's 150 by about 100 feet. This is located
in Englewood.
Because this is an urban ag project,
we will be selling each of these lots for $1 per parcel.
Eden Greens, I have Tiffany Khoshaba here, actually.
She is a local resident and
plans to build a hoop house and have community
programming around this farm.
The current zoning is RT4. Market value of these two
pins is $32,000. And like I said, the purchase price for
urban agriculture qualified applicants is
$1 per parcel. Here is
the site context.
As you can see, there's quite a bit of vacant land on this block.
Here is Tiffany's budget. Eden Greens has
raised about $26,000,
and their total budget is $33,000.
They plan vegetable beds and hoop houses, and
they are required to fence the entire lot.
That concludes my presentation for this land sale.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.
Thank you.
You said she's here?
Yes. I have Tiffany right here.
Thanks. She'll come up to the mic.
How are you doing?
Yeah. How are you?
You're currently doing work in that part of the ward, growing?
Not right now. We currently have a lot in Beverly that we're
working with.
Mm-hmm.
My background is I've done hydroponics, online teaching that, but we're
looking to get a traditional space to grow to help the community,
and then from that space, we're going to also help with education for
hydroponics as well, for residents that don't have their own land.
What are the local schools,
if any, and organizations that you're working with?
Right now, we have a board of five people, and two of the board
members are educators. So one works with a consulting firm that
works with a lot of organizations.
One is a
teacher. And we're working to get into
schools to help with these education programs.
We've decided that the first step needs to be us having the land,
creating the infrastructure to invite people out, and to further that.
So step one is to build what we're trying to build and then continue
with that process, but I don't see any issues with that.
Last question is,
you all will be selling the food that you grow?
Yeah. We're a nonprofit, so some of it we'll be selling to
have basic, helping people understand how that works and to
create that lifeline for people if that's what they want to pursue.
But we've already given away over 2,500 pounds of food.
So a lot of what we do is free.
Thank you.
And for the record, can you just say your name and title?
Yes. My name is Tiffany Khoshaba. I'm the president and founder of Eden Greens.
Thank you very much.
Of course.
Are there any other questions? Otherwise,
can I get a motion to move? So move, Alderman Taylor.
Aldermen-
It's Ann. I had my hand up, sir.
Oh, I'm sorry. For some reason, it didn't record.
Yeah, for some reason we didn't see you, and I'm sorry. Go ahead, Alderman Dowell.
I'm so sorry.
Just a real quick question. How do you decide what goes to
Neighbor Space and what goes outright sale
to someone like Eden Greens Urban Farms?
Great question. Yes. Meg Gustafson, Department of Planning.
Before we even list these for sale for urban ag, we're working with
the community. I also see Miranda Raskin,
our urban agriculture expert is here.
Before we list these for sale, we gauge community support,
aldermanic support, and then we list it specifically for urban ag.
If
someone else applies for urban ag, we review both applications, and
then we pick the best one.
That rarely happens because we're working so closely with the farmers
before we even list it for sale.
And the Neighbor Space question, Neighbor Space is the owner
of some urban ag sites,
so there's a little bit of overlap.
Right. My question is, how do you make the decision-
Mm-hmm
... to sell it outright to an urban green,
urban farm? I'm supportive of this.
Yeah.
I'm just trying to get an understanding, because I have
some,
as you know, urban agriculture
projects that get
directed to Neighbor Space, and I'm trying to
understand the difference in how you make these decisions.
Absolutely.
I think that when we go with Neighbor Space, it's because the
applicant and the farmer wants the protections that Neighbor
Space offers, which is liability,
technical assistance,
and all the ownership that comes with that.
Okay.
All the responsibilities of ownership.
We have some-
So there has to be an agreement between the
urban ag applicant, for example, and Neighbor Space.
And if there is not that kind of partnership and they apply on their
own, such as this organization, then they're allowed to
purchase that property. Is that accurate?
That is accurate.And yes, I'll just add that
one of our benchmarks is that you have about $20,000
already fundraised to even start to
apply to be an urban ag recipient.
Also,
I think it's the capacity of the farmers, and sometimes they
want Neighbor Space's help, and sometimes they don't need it.
So
we work with the farmers and gardeners, I would say this for both open
space and urban ag, and if they want to work with Neighbor Space, we'll
set them up for a meeting and see if they want to go that route.
If not, if
they prove they have the capacity to own the urban ag themselves as a nonprofit,
we go with them. But there's a
review process that's got a rubric, and I can
send that to you. That's also all on our Chi Block Builder website under the
urban ag facts. There's an FAQ about urban ag
there.
Thank you, Ms. Meg.
Thank you. Alderman Taylor?
This has nothing to do with this young lady who's applied.
But what happens when they want to sell this land?
Is there something that says you can't, or does it go back to the city?
How does it work?
They have to own it for 10 years.
Okay.
It is required for the urban ag category that they own it for 10
years. And after five years, if they're not keeping it
up, we can take the land back. There's a reverter
clause.
Thank you. That's good to know. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Scott, do you have a question? No.
Alderman Taylor, do you renew your motion to move on this item?
So moved.
So moved, Alderman Taylor. All those in favor say "aye." All those opposed say
"nay." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation of this ordinance will be reported out at the next City
Council meeting on April 15, 2026.
Congratulations to the 6th Ward and
Green Urban Farms as well.
Next, we have item seven,
is Ordinance
2026-0024-1110,
sale of city-owned property at 1551 and 1555
South Homan Avenue to Men Making a Difference under the Chi
Block Builder platform in the 24th Ward.
Meg again to present this item.
Thank you very much. Meg Gustafson, Department of Planning.
This is a land sale in Alderman Scott's ward.
This is 1551 through 55 South Homan.
It is located in North Lawndale. I have representatives from Men Making a
Difference here if there are any questions at the end.
They are a nonprofit. They're actually currently on the site.
It's two pins, approximately 50
by 125, or 6,000 square feet.
This is an open space request and
for Chi Block Builder, that's 10% of market value, so that would be
about $4,600 for both pins.
Here is the site context. They're just north of
16th on Homan.
Here is,
I'm not sure how old this photo is, but it's a fairly recent photo,
of Men Making a Difference's current
plaza and garden. Here's a rendering
of what they plan to build,
and a little about the group.
And here is their budget.
For this first phase, their budget is about $114,000.
They plan to do more landscaping,
and site prep with...
There's environmental remediation that will need to be done that we're working with
Men Making a Difference on, with DOE.
The
design and engineering cost is about $5,000.
They plan to do drainage and irrigation and put benches and a
stage.
That concludes my presentation for this land sale at Homan.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Any questions on this item? Alderman Taylor?
The organization is here?
They are here, yes. Would you guys mind going to the
microphone?
Mm-hmm.
Do you have a question for them?
Yeah. Here's the
applicant
from Men Making a Difference,
and if you can just please state your name and title for the record.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Robert Calhoun Sr.
I'm safe, sane, and sober, blessed by the best.
Ain't shame her, don't care who you go tell.
I'm the founding father of an organization known in North Lawndale as Men Making a
Difference. We are currently requesting
this property to put in a site where the
community can actually say, "We now have something that belongs to us."
The label of the community is North Lawndale Mad
Men Community Site,
which has been known to house the community in so many ways, whereas
anything that the community asks has been done there.
We've done repasses, we've done
hula parties.
We're a nonprofit
organization, but we also do a summer camp
for less fortunate kids in our community.
But our kids are treated as if they
are from the White House.
We take them outside of our community.
We have
young children who were once in the
community summer program, they are now our junior counselors coming back,
serving the community. We've been a violence prevention program to
where we have reduced the violence in our community.
We have five different commendations from the commanders
with the deep support of our two
aldermen and alderwomanWe work very well with the community, and
this would bring much more joy to North
Lawndale as a starting point to continue growth where the
community has something that they can honor and be
proud of.
Once again, my name is Robert Calhoun Sr., and I am the president of Men Making a
Difference.
How long have you all been in existence?
We've been in existence for 15 years.
Okay.
Like I said, and
we have been noted to where it is a record that we have
decreased the gun violence in our community.
By five different commanders accommodating us on that
fact. But the biggest joy is our
kids,
our seniors.
Just
one of our members said there was something missing.
He said the missing sounds of summer in our community-
Mm
... were overdrown by gun violence and violence and all of that.
We worked very hard
with a tool that each one that I heard somebody spoke about today.
We just went out and loved everybody.
Mm.
We do a Saturday morning free breakfast during the summertime.
This will also allow us to not stop
our services when the fall come.
See, because we're outside in two vacant lots, and
it's heaven to the community to where they could come and enjoy, sit down.
We do movie nights. We not only feed, we've been
working with other organizations in the community.
We worked on feeding all winter long.
It's kind of cold out there in the yard, but God has made a way, and we
make a way, and we thank.
We hope that we can depend on the city to show us so we can continue
this and be a model.
Because I'm open for how did we do it, and the only way we did it was with love and
support.
Thank you. You answered all my questions.
Thank Alderman Taylor. Alderman Scott, anything else too?
This is a great organization in North Lawndale.
They're always boots on the ground.
They have reduced a lot of violence
within that section of where they are, and they always just have a
open
door policy. If you want to come have breakfast in the summer, they
feed every Saturday, and you can get as much as you want.
It's everything. They make sure that they feed
everybody
during Thanksgiving, and it's just a wonderful thing.
We do
food drives. We bring services so that the folks
can get their license because we deal with a
population around there that just...
the less fortunate population in that area.
So,
Rock has done an amazing, him and Jack have done an amazing
job, even with doing the...
What is it?
What's the second part that you do?
Part-
The justice. The-
Oh
... restorative justice.
Restorative justice.
He forgot to mention that as well. They do a lot in that space, and so and
I'm proud to support that because everybody who knows
the gardens, the community spaces don't always have my heart, but
this one does because they do the right thing for the community.
Mm. Thank you, Alderman. Oh, yes. Go ahead.
Oh, I always tell people it's better to come see
us. June 6 is our first community breakfast.
Come on down and have breakfast with us.
Only thing I request is you eat there.
Well, we may take you on it.
But yes, certainly and definitely making a difference, especially now with
so much food insecurity. Commend you for your efforts, and congratulations,
Alderman Scott. Can I have a motion to move on this item?
So moved by Alderman Taylor and Scott.
All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation of these items will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15, 2026.
And congratulations again to the 24th Ward and Men Making
the Difference. You truly are making a difference. Thank you again.
Item number eight is ordinance
2026-0024112, sale of city-owned
property at 317 South California Avenue to Trisha
M. Ingle under the CHIC Block Builder in the 27th Ward.
Meg Gustafson again to testify on this ordinance.
Great. Thank you very much.
Meg Gustafson, Department of Planning and Development.
This is a land sale to Trish Ingle. She owns Chicago Pactive, which
is directly adjacent to this vacant city lot.
It's a typical 25 by 125
foot lot.
We have the support of Alderman Burnett.
This is in the East Garfield Park community area.
The market value of this lot is about $46,000.
10% of this as an open space request is
$4,600.
Here is the zoning map.
Trisha's business is directly to the north.
And here's a context photo. You can see the
site
in between the two buildings.
What Trish would like to do
is build...
Chicago Pactive is a doggy daycare center, and what she'd like to do is
build a garden and play area for the dogs.
It's 25 by 130 it says here.
They plan to
fence it, and their budget is about $9,200.
I also wanted to include some pictures of the dogs that are
currently using the back space, I believe.
So,
this will be the back and the side. And Trisha is here if we have any
questions about the business or thePlan.
And that concludes my presentation for this one. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. I'm not sure if anybody maybe want to say a few words to the
applicant?
Just introduce yourselves. Trisha?
You have some cute pictures over there, so.
Yes.
Hi, my name's Trish Ingle. I'm the owner of Chicago Pactive.
I appreciate you guys taking this into consideration.
I'm from the West Side, built my business on the West Side.
It's really exciting for me to be able to expand.
We did have to diminish our space moving from Lake Street over to
California Avenue because there were a lot of
regulations the City of Chicago requires when it comes to what you do with your
space. We had to build parking, so it took a lot of our outdoor space away, which
means the dogs have a lot less space.
I'm a member of my block club.
I attend their meetings. We do block club cleanups.
That lot seems to be an eyesore. We also have a lot of
vagrants
hanging out on that lot, sleeping,
using drugs, defecating. They've tagged my new facility many times
now. We've had to have the graffiti removed.
So it's my hope that while we're still in the works of trying to
plan and do a build-out for the doggy daycare and expand, that we can at least
start fencing it in and doing something with it that will
improve the appearance. Our block
definitely deserves it, and we have great neighbors, so...
I'm sorry?
How long have you been in existence?
17 years.
17. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah.
That's all I got.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. Any other questions?
Otherwise, can I get a motion to move on this item? So moved by Chair Mitchell.
All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay.
Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation of this ordinance will be reported out at the next
city council meeting on April 15, 2026.
And congratulations to the 23rd Ward, and Trisha, for your efforts.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, guys. Have a great day.
Item number nine is Ordinance
2026-0024-117, sale of city-owned property
at 10632 South Eggleston Avenue to Courtney
Lewis under the Check Block Builder platform in the 21st Ward.
Meg again to present on this item.
Great. Thank you. This is my last one.
This is in the 21st Ward.
This is a land sale to Courtney Lewis. It's in the open space category.
So 10% of market value of 10632 South
Eggleston is
$737.
We have Alderman Mosley's support.
The lot is approximately 30 by 120 and
is located in Roseland.
Courtney lives four houses north
on Eggleston. And this vacant
lot, here's a picture of it. She
plans to fence it,
and put raised garden beds and a tool shed and a
seating area. Her budget is approximately
$6,000.
Yes, she is required and
plans to fence it as her first phase.
Courtney could not make it today, but I can answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
So Courtney does not have an organization.
She's applying as an individual,
as a community garden. But the deed
will be in her name. She's not a nonprofit.
Okay.
So we do have a few like this, but we generally do prefer it's a nonprofit for the
open space. It's functioning a little bit like a side yard because she's
on the block.
Mm-hmm.
But it would be in her name. She's not a nonprofit.
You know how long she's lived in the community?
I believe 10 years, but I can get back to you on that.
Actually, I'm not sure. I know she's been there a while
and
worked with Alderman Mosley to get this listed specifically for her, and
then we opened it to anyone to apply in.
I believe she was the only applicant.
And she has to keep it for that garden for 10 years, correct?
This, for open space, it's five years.
It's five years.
Yes. For urban ag, it's 10 because it's a dollar, and we
thought that that would be it, but for-
So this one, she's paying...
She's paying
$737.
That would be 10% of the market value.
Okay. Because she lives on the block. Got it. Thanks, Meg.
And then she'll be responsible for the taxes, of course.
And she's not a nonprofit.
Okay.
So she will be an individual, and this will get back on the tax roll as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. Any other questions?
Otherwise, can I have a motion to move on this? Alderman Hadden.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed nay. Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation of this item will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15, 2026. Item 10. Thank you, Meg.
Item 10 is Ordinance 2026-0024-1108,
sale of city-owned property at 10726,
10730, and
10734 South Loomis Street
and 10717 South Glenroad Avenue
to Far South CDC under the Check Block Builder platform,
also in the 21st Ward. Jasmine Gunn from the Department of Planning and
Development is here to testify on this ordinance. Thank you, Jasmine.
Yes. Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon to you and the members of the
committee.
So for the record, my name is Jasmine Gunn.
I am a city planner for the Far South Region at the City of Chicago Department
of Planning and Development. I'm here to present the land sales for Cluster
G from the second round of Missing Middle Housing Initiative in the
Morgan Park community area.
So, Cluster G is in the 21st Ward, as mentioned, with Alderman Mosley and in
the Morgan Park community area. The project is located in DPD's Far
South Planning
Region.Cluster
G consists of four parcels which are all zoned RT4.
The total market valuation for the six parcels are
$59,326.65.
The total square footage of the four parcels is
30,735 square feet, with each parcel
having a dimension of approximately 51 by 100 feet.
DPD is selling each parcel for $1,
totaling $4 for the purchase price.
DPD did host an open house meeting with Alderman Moseley in October of
2025. We have received a letter of support from Alderman Moseley's
office on March 3rd, 2026.
So the applicant team that is present here today is made up of Far South
Community Development Corporation as a developer, Bower
Construction as the contractor, and Canopy Architecture & Design as the
architect.
Far South CDC is proposing four three-flat buildings, proposing a
total of 12 units.
Each of the units will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
So this is a site plan for the project. Note the basketball court shown.
This is a flexible open space that is also the turnaround area for
vehicles coming in and out of the parking space.
And this is the floor plan. As I mentioned, it features three bedrooms with the
main bedroom and the en suite and living spaces.
And then these are the front and rear elevations of the property, and
it's three stories tall.
And then here are the north and south side elevations of the
project as well.
So the developer is requesting $1.8 million from the Housing and Economic
Development bond. The total project cost is $6.6
million.
And these are just the details of that proposed budget.
And that concludes my presentation for Cluster G.
I want to thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.
And as I mentioned, the applicant team is here as well to answer questions.
Go on.
Mm-hmm.
Yes, and Alderman Mitchell also has a question. Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, guys.
Is this owner occupied?
The Missing Middle program will be owner occupied property.
Okay. Thank you.
And then it has been requested, Abraham or the applicant team, if you guys wouldn't
mind
coming to the...
Yeah. Alderman Mitchell.
Next, pardon me if I missed it. What will the
cost of each building?
I believe,
we could-
Yeah, I can answer
... pass the developer.
Cluster then, so what would each one-
Afternoon, everybody.
What's up, buddy?
How you doing?
The cost per building is about $1.6 million.
1.6. And what are we anticipating rent for those?
So we are doing a condo building.
Oh, that's going to be a condo.
Yeah.
Oh, wow.
We're going to do a condo building, yeah.
Trying to do owner occupant to try to find someone that can actually get a
mortgage to actually be able to sustain the property will be very
difficult. So condo-ing the building out, we're looking at selling each
unit about anywhere from like 230, $235,000 to maybe
250.
Okay.
Yeah.
That neighborhood?
Yeah. That's a pretty stable neighborhood-
Mm.
Okay
... in terms of pricing. We're doing our best to try to keep the
prices low, but there are considerations in
terms of construction costs that's escalating these things.
But that is a reasonable price point for that location.
What happens when you can't condo it?
If I can't condo it, then it goes
back to default of getting an owner occupant to be able to
rent out and actually own it. That's going to be much more
difficult.
How?
Well, you're going to get an owner occupant that's going to have to be able to get
a mortgage.
You're going to have to get a mortgage for somewhere close to about 800 to
some odd thousand dollars to be able to get that in Morgan Park, and
that proves to be a little bit difficult for someone to get a mortgage that high
and to be an owner occupant.
Yeah, I got loads of questions, and they really not-
Yeah
... it's really not for you because I'm concerned sometimes we talk
about condo and then when they don't sell, kind of what
happens.
It's a risk.
And then when the property, the taxes go up.
So I'm
experiencing that in my ward. Don't have a lot of condos.
We don't have a lot of legislation around condos and HOAs.
Mm-hmm.
And so now I got folks who, actually, the chairman is
working with me on a lady where the property taxes then went up-
Mm-hmm
... and she can't afford what the condo association
is asking for. And so
nothing to do with you but us to really have a conversation on how we
help families when this happen because-
Mm
... ultimately, it's all going to turn into renters.
That's what's going to happen because they can't.
Yeah, and I would add to that as well, even if you did it as an owner occupant-
Okay
... that problem still persists because that person is going to have to raise
rents-
Yep
... to everybody that's in the building.
That's in the building, yep.
So instead of it being sort of split across, the other two individuals or two
renters are going to see their prices go up.
Mm.
So condos,
I didn't want to do the condos-
Mm-hmm
... but I think that this was an easier, more plausible path
to get ownership. Because one of the things that the community wanted also was a
clear path of ownership and different housing stock, and types of
ownership to the location. So this was one of the
path that we're actually going. But I do agree with youThat's
a real concern.
And do condo owners go through the same thing that homeowners go
through?
Yes.
So like they go through NHS and that type of thing?
Yeah. So our organization, we are a HUD-certified housing counseling
agency, so we do the same thing. So they all have to go through an eight-hour
class to be able to do so. Now, if they were renters, they wouldn't.
But if they're owners, they would have to go through the eight-hour class because
there are other incentives. The good news is that the city has several
incentives for down payment assistance, as well as the state, that you can layer
on, which keeps the
mortgage low.
Has there ever been any conversation about those renters going to
be condo owners? Is there?
There hasn't. There hasn't. We try to
shy away from the sort of rent-to-own sort of model.
Mm-hmm.
That is very dangerous. It could get very-
You have not figured it out.
We haven't figured it out. So I try to stay away from the rent-to-own.
Mm-hmm.
I try to work with those who are ready to get to be owner ships,
and we do a great job. We have a great class that could get folks into it.
We usually have more people looking for homes than those that actually
available homes or actually available units available.
So,
there is a demand for it.
Thank you. I would appreciate if we start to have conversations about
renters actually becoming homeowners, because there is--
So I've been a renter my whole life, but now that my rent then went from being
$1,000 to $1,800, why would I continue to pay
rent?
Mm.
But it's also scary because that comes with responsibility.
It's insurance. And so
we got to have a bigger conversation, but that comes to mind when we look at
projects like this. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Thank you, Luwan. Just for the record, if you can state your name and
title, and then Alderman Mitchell.
Yes. I'm sorry. Abraham Lacy. I'm the president of the Far South Community
Development Corporation.
Thank you.
Abraham,
you know I know you to be a very capable, smart guy.
How did you arrive at the decision to do...
How many units is this? Three units?
It's three units per building.
Three units versus two.
Like a two owner-occupied two-flat versus owner-occupied three-flat.
Yeah.
What went into your decision?
Yeah. So when you get to a two-unit sort of
condo, it doesn't really work. Um-
Even for owner occupied?
Even owner occupant.
Yeah.
Well, for one, our primary decision is to maximize density
as much as possible.
Yeah.
To get as many residents, because our goal is to bring more residents back to
a neighborhood.
Mm-hmm.
And this is one of the reasons. So we started off with five units on the
site, but then we had to come down in terms of cost, that it was
getting too much,
and the price to sell it for was getting too high.
So we came down to the minimal amount in terms
of the maximum amount of population we wanted to see at this
location. So that was our understanding about why we didn't
go the two-flat route. That is like almost the last resort if
prices were going to go lower. But our goal is to bring as
much density as possible to an area that's lost so much population.
Yeah. Because
my development, we settled on owner-occupied
two-flats for the southeast side.
Why? Can I ask why did you set it to that?
Just because of the price points or?
Yeah, the price point. Mm-hmm.
Yeah. It's a little difficult even with three flats.
That's our last resort. Our team talked about if that was going to be
our last resort, if we were going to do two.
But we were able to get the numbers to work in terms of a
three-flat or a condo building at this point.
You would still, even if you did two,
just like you're trying to do five, you still would've got the 187.50 for the
subsidy? 175?
No, it's based on per unit, so it would've lowered the city subsidy-
Got you
... for that. And plus, the lot is a double lot.
Mm-hmm.
So it makes it a little bit difficult.
So we're trying to do our best to maximize that double lot that we have,
because if we only did a two-flat, we would still have to do a driveway because the
street in the front is so narrow.
So we try to maximize what we can.
Okay. All right.
Now, if you ever want to increase that subsidy-
I don't-
... that's going to be crazy
... that was a deco. All right. That is
way out of... It's over my pay grade. Yeah. No.
That's all I had, Chairman. Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Any additional questions?
Otherwise, can I have a motion to move on this item?
To move by Vice Chair Mitchell. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation on this item will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15th, 2026.
Thank you.
Congratulations, Abraham.
Thank you.
Item 11 is ordinance
2026-0024115, sale of city-owned
property at 4451 South Vincennes Avenue to
McBurty Construction Company under the Check Block Builder
platform in the third ward. Seth Thomas is here to present on behalf of
DPD. Thank you, Seth.
Yeah, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, Senator Lopez, and committee members.
So, for the record, Seth Thomas, development and land sale
city planner for the Department of Planning and Development.
Before us is a market-rate land sale at 4451
South Vincennes. This development also includes a
private address that
has a different parcel ID, but on the zoning map shares the same address.
It's in Alderman Dowell's ward, third ward, and support in the Grand
Boulevard community area in the southeast
region. So just for some context, the city
site in question is about 10,610 square feet
with a market value of $233,000 and some change.
As far as the zoning, the zoning is RM-5.
There's no zoning change proposed.
The site will be divided into two different zoning lots that will
be
fronting 45th Street
The lot is TSL eligible, and the applicant is going to
seek administrative relief to relocate the rear yard open
space to above the garages.
So,
the total project cost is just under $3 million, 2.9
million. And the real summary is
the
applicant is going to consolidate city property with the developer-owned land
to build a six-unit residential building with roof decks and a six-car
garage with a roof deck, as well as a three-unit residential building with a
roof deck, and a three-car garage with a roof deck.
So, a total of nine dwelling units.
As far as the project budget,
the applicant has about 16% of the total project
cost in equity. And as far as a
per unit breakdown, it'll be about $325,000
per unit.
So just for some additional details, as I mentioned before, the applicant
owns the lot to the north that's also fronting on Vincennes,
and has agreed to provide an easement to the two properties that
are located due east on 45th Street.
Here's the site condition, or showing the site from 45th,
and then here's the site from Vincennes.
The red outline is the
current applicant's property that he owns.
So just to get a little bit more into this easement concept,
the lot that runs north-south,
sort of a little bit to the east of Vincennes, there are two
homes that are currently fronting 45th, that due to the applicant's
owned lot, do not have access to the north-south
alley. And so, as we can see from the site plan here, the applicant is going
to build or construct a thruway to allow those two existing buildings
to access that north-south alley
through an east-west sort of cut into the alley.
This is the rendering. So, again, materials are all brick and fiber
cement siding.
And as a
kind of further note, just to the north on 45th Street, the applicant
has, I want to say maybe six months ago, gotten approval for
another construction project that's very, very similar.
So,
here are just some more renderings.
And then I wanted to note, out of all of the units, they will all be
three bedroom units.
So, the larger six-unit building will have a
front entrance,
again, with the roof deck, and then the smaller three-unit building will be a side
entrance building, just to allow for those three bedroom units
per property. So, that kind of ends my presentation.
I'm certainly open for questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Seth. Alderman Taylor.
How much are
the units going for?
So just from a breakdown of the budget and then dividing it
out, it's about $325,000 per
unit. As far as, I believe
Jennifer, who is the applicant's real estate agent, if she
has maybe a number in line as to what they're going to propose them for,
maybe it's a little bit more or less than that, but on an average, it breaks out to
about 325K a unit.
And so this is condos, this is rental, what is it?
My understanding, having spoken to the applicant, is
there will be,
certainly for the three-unit building, an idea to do an owner-occupied
sale, and then for the six-unit, it would be done through condos.
Condos.
This is in Alderwoman Dowell's ward.
Alderwoman Dowell, is this up the street from the
panel house?
Yeah, it's a couple of blocks away from the panel house.
The panel house is on 44th.
43rd. Yep. 47th. Okay.
And this is 44th, and this is on 45th.
It's across the street from Ebenezer Baptist Church.
Church. Okay.
And around the corner from Allison.
Yep. Listen, I was looking.
When he said 44th Street, I was like, "That's the house that's all
panel." It got all the... What is that? What is it called, Alderwoman Dowell?
Solar.
Oh, it's a solar home. Absolutely. So I know the community. Thank you.
I got it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. Any other questions? Or Alderman Dowell, anything else?
No, just to say that McViarty and Jennifer Bell
have
been in the community building condominiums, which have
all sold, and I'm glad to see that this
vacant parcel, which has been vacant for at
least 20 years or more,
is going to have some life and put some money back
on the tax rolls.
And I ask for the committee's support. Thank you.
Thank you. So
moved, Alderman Taylor. Any
other questions, otherwise can I have a motion by Alderman Taylor?
All those in favor say aye.
All those vote nay. In opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the due pass
recommendation of this item will be reported out at the next city council meeting
on April 15, 2026. Thank you very much, Seth.
Seems like you're familiar with that property, Alderman Taylor.
I was a short cut back in the day from going to the store, to the store.
Feels like that really light up your eyes when you saw it,
Alder. Thank you. Next item, item 12 is
ordinance 2026.0024107,
sale of city-owned property at 1501 East 69th Place
to Integrity Fry Urban Development
LLC under Tribe Block Builder platform.
Ernest Bellamy from the Department of Planning and Development is here to present
on this item.
Thank you. Thank you, Ernest.
Thank you, Chairman Citro Lopez, and good afternoon
to the members of the committee. For the record, my name is Ernest Bellamy.
I'm a development line sales city planner with the Department of Planning and
Development.
I bring forward to you today a request for disposition of one city
parcel at 1501 East 69th Street.
In attendance today is Gerald
Williams and Mark Buford of Intensify Urban
Development,
as well as their architects,
Prashant Mahakali and Thomas Hulme of
PMPC Architecture.
Oh, pardon. Here's the site.
Moving forward, the location of the disposition
is within the Fifth Ward, Alderman Desmond Yancey, within the South Shore community
area,
consisting of one city lot for the sale price of
$133,612.
The applicant submitted, and the department accepted it,
an offer price for that amount.
The parcels are located within the Southeast planning region,
and as an April 2025 Chi Block Builder applicant,
their
purchaser,
Urban Intensified Development,
is a longstanding developer with a team that has over 20
years experience developing on the south side.
For this Chi Block Builder land disposition, there was only one
applicant for this site,
and on January 8th, Alderman Yancey provided a letter of support for this land
disposition.
As an overview, the purchaser is proposing to develop a one
four-story building with eight
dwelling units.
Behind the building, there will be five parking spaces.
Total development cost will be
$2,213,089.
Current zoning for the site is RT4 and will be rezoned to
RM5 for the proposed development.
The lot dimensions are roughly 56 feet
wide by
124.61
feet
long.
Overall land disposition net area is
7,032 square feet.
For site context, the parcel resides within the South Shore community
area. The site is in a transit-served location,
roughly one and a half blocks from the Metro Electric Stony Island Station
and served by multiple CTA TSL bus lines within one
to one and a half block radius.
The parcel for disposition
is within a mixed infill portion along South Harper Avenue,
where existing residential is interspersed with vacant
city lots.
Transitioning to the street view, at the corner of East 69th Street and South
Harper Avenue,
we can
get a better sense of the parcel in context with the immediate
surrounding residential developments.
As an April 2025 Chi Block Builder application, the purchaser has gone through
DPD's review process for applicability to zoning and
design standards for the development.
As seen in this front elevation rendering, the proposal will span four stories,
with all
eight units being three bed,
two bath.
The overall site plan shows the layout of the residential building,
which fronts East 64th Street.
The site will
again have five parking spaces off the rear alley way,
along with bike parking for eight bikes within the
rear yard.
Next are the floor plans.
All floors will have the same floor plan, consisting of
two three bed, two bath units per floor.
Lastly, bring up the elevations. Here are the north and south
elevations, followed by the east and west forthcoming.
The materiality of the building will be brick
and frame, featuring
non-combustible siding and flat Hardie board.
I'll pause here for
any questions
from the committee.
Thank you. Alderman Taylor.
Price point. That's all I want to know.
Yeah.
Are these condos?
The
developer, Gerald Williams, can speak towards the price point of these.
You know
how?
Thank you. And please, with name and title for the record.
Gerald Williams, managing partner of Intensify Urban Development.
Mm-hmm.
Are we condo in the building, or is this-
Apartments
... oh, okay then.
Yes.
They're rental apartments. What's the price point?
It's going to be between $1,900 to $2,200 a unit.
And how many bedrooms are there?
Three bedrooms, two baths.
Thank you. That's all I want.
Mm-hmm. Thank you, Alderman Taylor. Any other questions?
Otherwise, can I get a motion to move on this item by Alderman Taylor?
Mm-hmm.
So moved by Alderman Taylor.
Everybody in favor say yes, all opposed, say nay.
Aye.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting on
April 15, 2026. Congratulations.
Thank you.
And I'm looking forward to
it.Next
item, item 13th is Ordinance
2026-0024114, sale of city-owned property at
1469 East 69th Place,
also to Intensify Urban Development under the Chic
Block Builder platform in the 5th Ward.
Ernest Bellamy, again from DPD to present on this item.
Thank you, Chairman Lopez, and good afternoon once more to the
members of the committee. Again, for the record, my name is Ernest Bellamy.
I am a development land sales city planner with the Department of Planning and
Development. I bring forward to you today a request for
disposition of one city parcel at 1469 East
69th Place.
Once more, in attendance is Gerald Williams and
Mark Buford of Intensify Urban Development, as well as their
architect, Prashant Mahakali, and Thomas
Home of PMPC Architects.
Architecture, pardon.
The location of the disposition is within the 5th Ward, Alderman Desmond
Yancey, within the South Shore Community area,
consisting of one city lot for the sale price of
$292,500. The applicant
submitted and the department accepted an offer matching that
amount.
The parcel is located within the Southeast planning region,
and the parcel is
from the October 2024 round of Chic Block Builder.
The applicant, Urban Intensify
Development, is a longstanding developer with a
team that has 20 years of experience developing on the South Side.
On January 8th, Alderman Yancey provided a letter of support
for this land disposition. And
of the Chic Block Builder applications for this slot, there was only one
applicant for this site.
As an overview, the purchaser is proposing to develop one
four-story building with 16 dwelling units.
Two of the units will be ARO units to comply with the Affordable
Requirements Ordinance.
Behind the building, there will be eight parking spaces.
Total development costs will be
$4,317,940.
Current zoning for the site is RT4 and will
be rezoned to RM-5 for this proposed development.
The lot dimensions are roughly 84 feet wide by
124.59 feet long.
The land disposition net area is 10,466 square
feet.
For site context, the parcels reside within the South Shore Community
area.
Just like the
prior site, it is a transit-served location, roughly one and a half
blocks from the Metro Electric Stony Island station and
served by multiple CTA TSL bus
lines within a block to a block and a half radius.
The parcels for disposition are within a mixed infill portion
along South Harper Avenue, where existing residential is interspersed
with vacant city lots.
Transitioning to the street view, you could get a greater sense of that
context,
as seen here.
Once more, as an October 2024 Chic Block Builder application
applicant, the purchaser has gone through DPD's
review process for applicability to zoning and
design standards for development.
As seen in this rendered front
elevation, the proposal will span four floors
with a mix of
unit types of two bed, one
bath, two bed, two bath, and three bed, two bath units.
The overall site plan shows the layout of the residential building, which fronts
East 64th Place
and hugs the corner of South Harper Avenue with a three-foot setback.
The site will have eight parking spaces off the rear alleyway, along with
bike parking for 16 bikes within the rear yard.
Next are the floor plans.
First floor will be composed of the two bed,
one bath unit
type, as well as a two bed, two bath
unit type, and the upper three floors will have a mix between two bed,
two bath and three bed, two bath units.
Lastly are the typical elevations.
First up, the north and south, followed by the east and west.
The materiality of this building will be brick and frame,
featuring non-combustible siding and flat Hardie board.
Here concludes the presentation.
I'll hold here for any additional questions from the committee.
Any questions on this item?
Any other questions for the applicant? It's here just in case.
Otherwise, can I have a motion to move by Alderman Taylor?
So moved by Alderman Taylor. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting
on April 15, 2026.
Congratulations again to Intensify Urban
Development LLC. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
The last item, thank you, everybody, for bearing with us,
we have a substitute ordinance for this next item, the last item.
The ordinance has been updated to add the drawings and plans as the part of Exhibit
B. We know other substantive changes.
Copies of the substitute have been emailed and handed out to committee members in
your packetsThis is item 14,
substitute ordinance
2026-0024-113, sale
of city-owned property at 346 East 56th
Street to Jack Properties LLC under the Jack Block Builder in
the 30th Ward. Can I get a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Alderman Taylor. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The substitute is before us, and Ernest
Bellamy is here from DPD to present on this item.
Thanks once more, Chairman Citlua Lopez,
and thank you once more to the members of the committee.
Once again, for the record, my name is Ernest Bellamy.
I am a development land sale city planner in the Department of Planning and
Development.
I bring forward to you today a request for disposition
of one city parcel at 346 East
56th Street.
The developer and architect
were unable to attend
today's meeting.
Moving forward, the disposition
at 346 East 56th Street is within the 24th Alderman
woman, Janet Taylor, within the Washington Park community area,
consisting of one city lot for the sale price of
$154,847. The
applicant submitted and the department accepted an offer
price of $155,000,
roughly $153 above the asking price.
The parcels are located within the Southeast planning region
and as a April
2025 Chi Block Builder applicant,
the purchaser, Jack Properties LLC, is a developer with seven years of
experience.
And more broadly, a team that has over 25 years of experience
developing on the South Side.
There was only one applicant for this Chi Block Builder parcel.
And on January 29th, Alderwoman Taylor provided a letter of support
for the land disposition.
As an overview, the purchaser will be subdividing the city lot into four
parcels,
for an overall development of four two-story buildings
with two dwelling units per building,
for a total of eight dwelling units across the
entire site. Behind each building, there will be
a two-car garage for a total of eight
parking spaces.
The total development cost will be
$1,955,000.
Roughly
breaking down to
$488,000
per each subdivided site.
Current zoning for the site is RM-5 and will remain for the proposed
development. The lot dimensions are roughly 110 feet
wide by 126 feet long.
The land disposition net area is
14,077 square feet.
For site context, the parcel resides within the Washington Park community area.
The site is a transit-served location, roughly two blocks
from the CTA Green Line station,
and served by multiple CTA TSL bus lines within a
half-block to one-block radius of the site.
The parcels for disposition are within a mixed infill portion of East 56th
Street, where existing residential is interspersed with vacant
city lots.
Switching to the street view along East
56th Street,
we can get a better sense of the parcel in context with the immediate surrounding
residential developments. Once more, as a April
2025 Chi Block Builder applicant, the purchaser has gone through
DPD's review process for applicability to zoning and design standards
for the development.
As seen in this
collective front elevation,
each of the four residential buildings will consist of two units.
The proposal is envisioned to be
workforce housing to allow for more
accessible homeownership for Washington
Park residents.
The overall site plan shows the layout of the
four residential buildings across the site with their respective
garages off the alleyway. Each two-flat will
have a wood deck and rear yard open space.
Next are the floor plans.
The lower level, shown on the right side of the screen,
will consist of a two-bed, one-bath workforce unit,
whereas the main floor and the upper floor will
be an owner-occupied unit
consisting of a three-bed, two and a half bath unit that spans
both the main floor and upper floor.
Lastly is a set of typical elevations.
The materiality for the two variations shown
will be brick at the base with a fiber
cement siding,
which would be representative of this elevation set.
And lastly, a brick and cast stone masonry, with
a flat roof for the alternate set.
Here concludes my presentation. I'll hold here for any additional comments from the
committee.
Thank you. Any questions on this item?
No questions. It's a move to pass by Alderman Moore. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The do pass recommendation of this ordinance will be reported out at the next city
council meeting on April 15th, 2026.
There being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion to
adjourn? It's a move by Alderperson Anna Happenworth.
All those in favor say aye. All opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and this meeting has been officially
adjourned. Thank you very much for bearing with us. Have a great day.