Greetings, all!

“Final” AOE attracts even more criticism

JPW Update readers are well aware that the Assessment of Effects (AOE) report is a key part of the federal Section 106 review of the impact that the plans for the Obama Presidential Center along with its required road changes would have on historic Jackson Park. 

The initial draft AOE released July 29 seemed a bit schizophrenic: in places it documented significant adverse effects on Jackson Park while also arguing in other portions of the report that the impacts were negligible.  The second version of the AOE (labeled “Final”), released January 16, was even more inconsistent and more jarring, coupling clear documentation of adverse effects with a forceful assertion of a flawed analytical framework that would render not only the Section 106 process but also the required NEPA and 4(f) reviews virtually meaningless. 

• Specifically, the “final” AOE asserts that any impacts of closing Cornell Drive between 59^th and 63^rd Streets and of removing the segment of the Midway Plaisance between Stony Island and Cornell Drive as well as any impacts of the construction of the OPC are exempt from the requirement to consider ways to avoid or minimize those impacts.
• Further, it asserts that the proper baseline for the limited review it does propose is the post-construction condition of the park and neighborhoods, not the condition today.

Once again, JPW and other consulting parties have responded with careful, thoughtful commentary and critiques, posted on the JPW website.    Themes running throughout the critiques include:

• Analyses showing that the AOE analytical framework is contrary to the National Historic Preservation Act, flies in the fact of the inextricable ties between so-called “City” actions and “Federal” actions, and, akin to efforts of the current administration to gravely weaken environmental protections, would set a threatening precedent for further historical protection efforts;

• Consistent questioning and criticisms of the City’s assertions that UPARR replacement parkland should be located on the east end of the Midway Plaisance, already itself parkland listed on the National Register of Historic Places;

• Criticisms of the plan to destroy the Women’s Garden, use the area as a construction staging ground, and then build a scaled down altered green space without the perennial border and trees;

• Pointed questions as to why the proposal to merge and expand the existing golf course is not included in the present Section 106 review when the proposals to close Marquette Drive and construct several underpasses, infrastructure work directly related to the golf project, are themselves included.

What comes next?

The National Historic Preservation Act requires that the lead Federal agency, the FHWA, “consults with consulting parties to develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on the historic properties” (36 CFR § 800.6 (a)).

In that regard, we note that on February 21 the City sent the following statement to the consulting parties: “FHWA is reviewing the comments received, which included objections to findings of effect contained in the AOE, and evaluating those objections to determine how to proceed. As described in 36 CFR 800.5(c)(2), FHWA may either consult with the objecting party to resolve the disagreement or request the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to review the finding and provide its written opinion to FHWA. FHWA will ensure documentation is prepared to address comments received and the documentation will include copies of all comments received on the final AOE.” We will see what happens.

In the meantime, construction of the OPC and work on the road changes remain on hold. As always, we will keep you posted.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks to all who have recently offered financial support.  We welcome your contributions.  You can contribute in three ways:

• You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 
• You can contribute via PayPal here.
• You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 

Once again, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch

www.facebook.com/jacksonparkwatch

Greetings, all!

In this Update:

• A look at that AOE webinar: the bad and the good
• Time to suggest alternatives
• The CBA, displacement, and affordable housing; Lake levels

What the AOE webinar told us

The January 23 consulting parties’ webinar – held to discuss the “final” AOE report – was a mixed bag, with a frustrating format but also some useful clarifications. Here are some takeaways:

·         Does a webinar replace a public meeting? – While a teleconference can be useful, it does not lend itself to productive discussion among a large number of participants (some 50 on Jan. 23).   There were communication problems throughout – imperfect audio reception, confusion about who was speaking, speakers talking over one another, an auto-transcription feature that provided a garbled version of what was being said during the session. We were told that a clean, corrected transcript of the session would be prepared by the FHWA, but that has not yet been made available. 

·         Who’s actually in charge of the Section 106 review? – An official of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation interjected at several points during the webinar to clarify issues of continuing confusion.  (To refresh your memory of the role of the ACHP, see JPW Update for September 20, 2019.) In response to questions about the City’s conflicting roles as both proponent and reviewer of the plans under assessment, she stressed the need for the responsible lead federal agency, the FHWA, to play its rightful role as manager of the overall review.  She emphasized the need for the FHWA to manage the process of resolving the adverse effects that have now been identified. 

·         What’s the proper scope of the Section 106 review? – The ACHP representative also emphasized that the “undertaking” for which adverse effects have been determined and now need to be resolved encompasses all of the proposed changes for Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance, including the City’s actions regarding the OPC and the related road closures. 

·         What is the process for resolving adverse effects? – The ACHP official noted that the standard process to resolve the adverse effects would require multiple meetings and significant interaction with consulting parties to consider options for avoidance, minimization and mitigation.

As context and background for all of this, we recommend a recent piece by The Cultural Landscape Foundation  that points to the policy issues and implications underlying the text of the “final AOE.”  We and others will be addressing a variety of outstanding issues in the next round of consulting party comments due February 18.

Time to suggest alternatives to OPC, road designs

The Section 106 process continues.  Construction of the OPC is not about to begin.  It is time to begin dialogue about alternatives to address the adverse effects that all – including the FHWA and the City – have agreed the current plans would cause.

Following the webinar, a  Sun-Times editorial heralded the need to consider alternatives to the current OPC and road designs:  “Anything less could lead to a design that spoils this jewel of a park rather than enhances it.”  JPW responded with a letter  identifying three major changes that are broadly supported in the community and would smooth the way for construction of the OPC to actually begin: “right-sizing” the museum tower, improving but not closing Cornell Drive; and locating generous parkland replacements in portions of Woodlawn, badly in need of park space. 

Some days later Mayor Lightfoot herself seemed to open the door to consideration of alternatives to the current designs in a Sun-Times interview.  

Your turn:  In light of this, JPW asks community members who support having the OPC on Chicago’s South Side – and, with appropriate major modifications, in Jackson Park – to communicate their thoughts about what changes are needed for that to happen to Mayor Lightfoot and her chief lieutenants on this project, Maurice Cox, head of the Department of Planning & Development, and Gia Biagi, head of CDOT. 

Possible talking points:

1. As a community member, you may want to express your views on whether community input on the OPC site plans and road changes was appropriately considered under the prior administration.
2. Express support for the OPC in South Chicago but also identify whatever key changes you think would be needed for it to be appropriate in Jackson Park.  (If you think it should be out of Jackson Park, say that also, but it would be very helpful to offer opinions about changes that could be make it more acceptable on the Jackson Park site.)
3. Thank Mayor Lightfoot for her emphasis on the importance of community input and transparency and ask her to take the lead in ensuring that there is real community input and dialogue going forward on how to resolve the adverse effects of the OPC and road changes as currently planned on Jackson Park.

Please send your comments to the Mayor at lori.lightfoot@cityofchicago.org and letterforthemayor@cityofchicago.org ;  to  Maurice Cox at Maurice.Cox@cityofchicago.org ; and to Gia Biagi at Gia.Biagi@cityofchicago.org. 

The CBA, affordable housing, and avoiding displacement

While the controversy over the OPC and road plans continue, the controversy over the Community Benefits Ordinance and displacements of long-time Woodlawn residents continues as well and if anything has intensified.  To the disappointment of many, Mayor Lightfoot has not supported the basic CBA ordinance presented by Aldermen Jeanette Taylor and Leslie Hairston.  Instead, the City Department of Planning and Development has come up with an alternative plan that was outlined in a report released just hours before its presentation at a January 30 Open House.  The plan is getting mixed reviews and faces direct opposition by Alderman Taylor.

JPW continues to believe that the basic CBA principles have a great deal of merit and hopes for a positive ultimate resolution.

Lake levels

In the meantime, lake levels continue to rise with expanding damage to lakefront facilities and properties.  Some are questioning whether, all other considerations aside, it makes sense to close Cornell between 59^th and 63^rd Streets if South Lake Shore Drive may on occasion be closed due to flooded conditions.  We will continue to track this and will keep you posted.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks as always to all who have recently contributed to JPW.  As always, we welcome your support.  You can contribute in three ways:

• You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 
• You can contribute via PayPal here.
• You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

www.facebook.com/jacksonparkwatch

(To