Parts of this report:
Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this report.
On June 2, Part 1 of this report was presented to the Village of Oak Park Trustees, Planner, Manager, and Clerk to provide Village decision makers with an organized and well-documented analysis of plans for development of the Downtown Oak Park area in general, and of the 1000 Lake Street site in particular. In the months following, considerable further information about the proposal was revealed, and a draft of Part 2 of the report was prepared for the Plan Commission hearings. This Part 2 supplements the earlier, May 30 report, rather than replacing it, presenting new evidence, analysis, arguments, and questions. These reports were prepared by a coalition of volunteers, including business owners, architects, urban planners, business professors, lawyers, sustainability experts, and other professionals, Members of the coalition behind Part 1 of the report conducted further research and analysis of the application and the applicant’s presentation. At the hearings and thereafter, considerable new evidence has come to light. This Part 2 of the report presents new evidence and analyses based on information received since the first report was submitted to the Board.
These new analyses provide further support for the conclusion reached by the Plan Commission, that the proposal submitted by Albion for Sammons Enterprises of Dallas, TX must not be approved. The Village has placed severe limitations on its citizens’ ability to speak to their elected trustees on this important matter. Although given some opportunity to speak to the Plan Commission, the opportunity to speak to the trustees about developments at those hearings and thereafter is restricted to a total of three 3- minute comments, during which no interaction with trustees is permitted. Trustees have declined to meet with citizens on the issues, at least in part because of advice from the Village Attorney not to do so. Accordingly, the two parts of this report are the only substantial opportunity to present a balanced, up-to-date analysis directly to the trustees.
1.2 Has the proposal changed?
From time to time at the Plan Commission hearings, Albion representatives proposed various minor modifications, including reinstating some of the setbacks, and promising some. As the Plan Commission recognized, none of those changes would significantly ameliorate the proposal’s shortcomings. On September 27, a memo from Albion’s Andrew Yule to Tammie Grossman proposed yet another small modification. That modification would affect only one of the many problems associated with this project (shading in the southeast part of Austin Gardens), and appears to make only a small change even in that one respect. (The proposal is compared to an imagined alternative that is Appropriate Development at 1000 Lake Street: Part 2 September 29, 2017 4 incorrectly identified as by-right; the hypothetical alternative still violates many zoning requirements other than height.) A local architect consulted on the effects of this last-minute modification stated that “The current Albion proposal is a modest improvement, and provides little additional compensating benefits for requested height and density of use variances. …This week’s proposed upper floors setback on the north side by Albion is more appropriate for the scale of high-rises in major downtown centers (NYC, Chicago, etc.), not Oak Park.”
In a town like ours, it is more appropriate to rely on zoning in which “additional height and density is provided in exchange for additional building setback.” A typical, compensating setback requirement for a building of the proposed size would be 60 to 80 feet—quite different from the 0, 5, or 10 foot setbacks proposed. The unintended effect of the developer negotiating with individual trustees and commissioners is a haphazard and piecemeal approach that does not yield an effective, coherent design. The last-minute modification is interesting in another way. During testimony before the Plan Commission, Albion representatives categorically stated that any reduction in height, to any part of the building, would render the project infeasible. (See the August 29 meeting: http://oak-park.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=819 at 2:49:02.)
It is unclear which, if any, modifications are actually committed to in the proposal before the Board. Regardless, we have examined the different modifications that have been offered at various points, including the last-minute modification of September 27. We find no instance in which the project’s impacts are qualitatively changed. Given the massive dimensions of the project, such small modifications would yield little or no amelioration of the impact of the building on the adjacent streets and park, and in some cases (parking, for one example) they actually make matters worse.
1.3 Consistent official and professional opposition.
At every juncture, bodies tasked with evaluating the appropriateness of this type of project at this location have concluded that it is a bad idea. That includes the Downtown Master Plan in 2005, the Envision Oak Park Comprehensive Plan in 2014, and now the Plan Commission of the Village of Oak Park. Each of these bodies comprised relevant experts who spent hundreds of person-hours (and in the first two cases, many thousands of dollars) evaluating evidence, speaking with dozens of different stakeholders, and weighing costs and benefits. At hearings, some proponents incorrectly claimed that Envision Oak Park contradicted the earlier recommendations of the Downtown Master Plan. Because the Village declined to purchase the 1000 Lake St. property for public use, the latter plan does not include the idea of a plaza on that site. However, in at least 14 different places, Envision Oak Park reconfirms the applicability of the earlier Master Plan, and emphasizes the necessity that new development be consistent with the existing character of downtown and enhance parks and other public spaces. The supporting citations from the Comprehensive Plan are found on Pages 9 – 12 of Part 1 of this report.
It is also misleading to characterize the Plan Commission decision as narrow. Although the final vote was 5 to 4, only one Commissioner (Glenn Brewer) expressed strong support for the proposal. In addition to the five straight “no” votes, two others (Paul May and Lawrence Brozek) indicated they were prepared to support the proposal only with significant modifications and added compensation.
1.4 Clear and growing public opposition. Between the earlier report and now, public opposition to the Albion-Sammons proposal has continued to mount. In May we reported that “petitions opposing the Albion proposal have gathered approximately 1500 signatures.” We can now report that there are over 3700 signatures (about 1900 on-line and 1800 on paper), documentation of which, minus 200 recent additions, has been provided to the Village Planner. The Plan Commission reported a ratio of about 10:1 in the e-mails they received, in favor of rejection. Five people signed up to give comments in support of the proposal; 46 against. This cannot be dismissed as just another NIMBY outburst. The numbers alone make that clear.
As a reference point, consider that in the April, 2017 election, the margin between the trustee candidates with the most and least votes was 2,287. But also, an examination of the 1800 printed petitions will show that signers come from all over the Village, in addition to those from other towns who were in Oak Park as employees or as customers.
1.5 Evidence supporting the application is absent or unreliable.
The documents and presentations provided by the developer of course do not provide an impartial analysis. They are a marketing campaign—a campaign honed by Albion’s parent companies in many communities across the country, and created by well-funded analysts and professional writers. Nevertheless, many of Albion’s statements and claims are not backed by any data, or are backed by analyses that are contradicted by experts not in Albion’s employ. Much of the time during the Plan Commission hearings was spent on the question of the adequacy and accuracy of the evidence in the Albion application. For a concise summary of these issues, see the August 29 Plan Commission closing statement of the Park District, found here: http://oak-park.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=819 from 1:05:50 to 1:28:45.
The applicants and their attorney sought to argue that to the extent that the applicant’s evidence was contradicted by other experts, the ensuing uncertainty meant that the application should be approved. However, Village ordinances clearly state otherwise: “3.9.1.G.5. The burden of providing evidence and persuasion that any planned-development permit meets the standards set forth below shall, in every case, rest with the applicant.” There was no disagreement that the proposed building would hurt trees, soil, and vegetation in Austin Gardens, would interfere with the production of solar energy at the Environmental Education Center, and would reduce the Center’s value. Disagreement ensued only over the extent of those negative effects. On each of those issues, contradictory evidence was presented by highly credentialed and experienced experts who had conducted careful studies. Their findings must be granted credibility. Later in this report, we will also present further evidence calling into question Albion’s claims about wind, traffic, environmental impact, and economics.
1.6 The myth of compensation.
Developers commonly offer compensatory benefits in return for allowing developments that otherwise disadvantage the community. In this case, the proposed compensations are inadequate, uncertain, and inappropriate. Inadequate because they represent only a tiny fraction of the profits that Sammons Enterprises will reap from this project (see Plan Commission testimony, August 29) and because non-monetary compensations are miniscule (see Section 7 of this report). Uncertain because Albion often added phrases such as “if the Board requires” to their promises, and because a large part of the monetary compensation is in escrow, with no specifics about the conditions under which it may be released. Inappropriate because, even if the number is raised, allowing Albion to damage a section of Austin Gardens in return for monetary compensation is tantamount to selling a piece of the park to the developer. Whether this is legally permissible is beyond the scope of this report. Regardless, it is not proper to do so.
Claims of other benefits, such as tax revenue, also do not stand up to scrutiny (see Section 7 of this report). In sum, this project is like a bad pay-day loan. It promises you quick money up front, you end up paying and paying forever, and the company makes off with a huge profit.
1.7 Call to Trustees.
Given the depth and consistency of the advice from these dedicated experts, heeding that advice is the wise decision. Given the clear evidence of overwhelming opposition on the part of Oak Parkers, representing those wishes is being a responsible elected official. Given the clear risks of negative impact and the likelihood that those impacts will never be properly compensated, rejecting this application is the prudent path. Oak Park need not, and should not, settle for a dubious, mediocre development that might not even be “better than nothing.” The Board should insist on better: The customers, visitors, and residents of Oak Park deserve better.