Section 106 Historic Review- Jackson Park- OPC Mobility review for South Lakefront Plan 2017-18 (Environmental Review) by Gary Ossewaarde

Return to Jackson Park/JPAC home in hydepark.org. PAC official website- www.jacksonparkadvisorycouncil.org
To Obama Presidential Center Jackson Park page www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/ObamaPLibrary.htm
Jackson Park News and Bulletins in hydepark.org
South Lakefront Plan website including for comments- www.southlakefrontplan.com (Our website will construct a page just about this). Obama Foundation- www.obama.org.
The official website for Section 106 Jackson Park is
https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements. REPORTS
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/2018-03-19-HPI-Report.pdf. https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/Appendices.zip.
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/2018-03-19-Arch-Report-pdf.

Email address to make comments to the Inventory, impacts etc.: Department of Planning and Development- Attn. Eleanor Gorski or Abby Monroe (will also be forwarded to CDOT). dpd@cityofchicago.org.
LATEST UPDATE/SCHED- GO TO
ww.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/Newsletters/Obama_Center_Reviews_Updates.pdf
HERE

Schedule of meetings and process from January 2018. 2nd mtg March 29 announced, findings so far AND LINKS TO REPORTS. March 29
The process.
About the Section 106 review (The site is https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements. http also works, or navigate from cityofchicago.org find Planning and Development Department (DPD) and navigate)
Part 1 is the invitation/announcement,
Part 2 is a summary of the full description from the Dec. 1 2017 Kickoff meeting for working group
with draft HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY and WORKING LINKS including to maps
(Summary of comments + official letters after Dec 1 2017 consulting parties kickoff: https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson-park-improvements.htm.)
The brief report on the December 1 meeting
From the JPAC Newsletters
Various thoughts and comments
2ND MTG MARCH 29 2018 AND REPORTS SUMMARY- SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS FOUND, EXPECTATIONS, THE MEETING, AND SUMMARY OF REPORTS

August 2018: OBAMA CENTER AND HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS UPDATES

JPAC main pages on the matters, with links: http://www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/Newsletters/Obama_Center_Reviews_Updates.pdf (this page)
http://www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/ObamaPLibrary.pdf
http://www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/Section_106_OPCMobilityHistoricReview_2017.htm


Modified 8-16-18 GMO. This page will be periodically updated online.

OBAMA CENTER. The Section 106 and other reviews of historic and environmental effects and impacts of proposed changes, and any ameliorations/mitigations that will be required in a Memorandum of Agreement for the OPC to proceed, and for the road changes to proceed, will not be completed until early next year. The final Historic Properties Inventory is still scheduled to be released this summer. Next up in late summer/early fall is a meeting (“3rd”) that includes a report on “impacts” and on preferred alternatives for lost recreational land/fields. This fall will see: the “4th” Section 106 historic properties Consulting Parties meeting (JPAC is included), the final Memorandum on that, and the environmental (NEPA) finding that will be subject of a public meeting in late 2018. The final federal finding is due in early 2019. There are varying views about how the review process should go, and the assumptions under which it operates, and involved is lots of material, staff time, thought, and likely negotiation, not to mention the volumes of comments and testimony to be sorted. Conclusions and reaction to some or all--will likely be, or viewed as subjective.

Meanwhile: (1) The city is preparing a complete, updated lease contract/ ordinance specifying the site and terms of use for OPC operation--this should go before City Council at the end of summer or early fall and is expected to factor into the lawsuit re: siting and use of park land for the OPC. (2) In response to the review and other delays, the official groundbreaking and start are now pushed back by the OPC to some time in 2019. Michael Strautmanis of the Foundation is quoted in the Tribune that they “knew there were some things that were not in our control. We insist on going through the process with integrity and without rushing.” They have pledged that no tree removal or work on their intended 19.3 acre site (which is north of 62nd St.) will happen until all reviews and approvals are received

The timelines of the city’s final ordinance and the Protect Our Parks lawsuit vs. City of Chicago and Chicago Park District before U.S. District Judge John Blakey

• January 2015 City Council passed an ordinance allowing the city to enter into agreement to transfer a parcel in Jackson Park for subsequent transfer. It was not specific, for example not authorizing an agreement with a user or of course what such terms could be. Also, much including the proposed footprint changed afterwards. The state also passed an enabling amendment to the parks law.

• May 2018 a lawsuit was filed by Protect Our Parks organization.

• May 17 the Chicago Plan Commission heard and approved the OPC, road changes, a replacement track and more but did not include the specifics mentioned above.

May 22 the Zoning Committee, and May 23 City Council approved the same as the Plan Commission, the new turf track, road changes and more including preliminary (“Local Partner” declaration of what it wants to do was, inter alia, said needed for the federal reviews continuing although, but, one speculates, not necessarily to their conclusion.

• In May, the judge set a status hearing for the lawsuit for July.
City and park district filed requests stating grounds (May 30 and later) for extension to file (Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss. June 4, without dissent from the plaintiffs, the judge set July 9 for defendants filing and July 30 to file responses to motions to dismiss, August 6 for plaintiffs to respond and August 9 for a motion hearing.

• July 28 the defendants asked to push back this schedule until a complete ordinance is passed-- “after an ordinance governing significant aspects of the Obama Presidential Center’s Operation in Jackson Park is introduced to the City Council and the City Council chooses to enact it. The ordinance would provide the necessary legislative authorization for the City to enter into an agreement with the Foundation addressing how the foundation will be permitted to use the site, and would also approve the terms of the agreement, which would be attached and included into the ordinance.” They argued in effect that the lawsuit cannot be resolved until and unless there is an action- a law implementing what the lawsuit seeks to stop and that no damage will be done to the plaintiffs because no work can proceed on the site until after the ordinance and an agreement with the OP Foundation is in effect. (A complication is that work in the new track site the site would start before that redefinition of site is officially made—work has since started, see below.) July 9 the court granted defendants’ motion to strike August 9 hearing and set the status hearing (including for case management dates) as August 28, 9:45 a.m. at the Dirksen Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn, room 1203. Dates of course may change.

• August 14 – hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to delay or stop work and construction on the track site and move up hearings. (See outcome in next section on the Track and Field.)

• Status check schedule was set date for hearing (after the city has passed an ordinance, according to the judge) was unclear to this writer- probably after late September.

Track and Field south of 62nd St. Work was started the 4th weekend of July on a new, updated artificial track and field on the northeast corner of 63rd and Stony Island. Arrangements have been made with the sports teams that had been using the ball fields on that site—they’ve been using these all summer. The replacement track and field (but not the displaced ball fields) will be paid for by the Obama Foundation. The present track and field is presently in the OPC proposed site. The new site is proposed by the city to be not part of that site (see above). Plans were in motion (and are hard to stop without penalties and higher costs et al) before the review and approval processes were set back, so that summer break could be used to get a new track in place by fall for the teams and public to use without disruption. That exact and tight timetable had long been public. This is nevertheless irrelevant if the PD is correct that this remains their land with right of action and this is not land they intend to turn over to OPC where they said work will not start until all is resolved.) After the track and field work began and trees cut down, the plaintiffs to the lawsuit filed to stop the work. Note that this could have denied the sports teams and public their improved field and left a very visible part of the park messy and fenced.

The judge on August 14 did not grant plaintiff’s motion and lifted the temporary hold on construction and said he would see the parties back after the city passed the OPC ordinance and lease agreement and meanwhile the parties can move forward with discovery, subpoenas, et al including how Jackson Park became the site for OPC, for the larger lawsuit. Not addressed were arguments that damage was done by trees removal (note- many of these were dead or dying) and possible damage to historic remains or their becoming less (note- the track is mostly above ground and historic inventory so far indicates what’s underground does not have historic value sufficient of excavation).

Statement in letter to the Sun-Times by CPD Director of Planning and Construction August 16 2018.

The Chicago Sun-Times editorial’s assertion that the Chicago Park District jumped the starter’s pistol in Jackson Park disregards the public process leading to the construction of the new track and field.
The Chicago Park District held numerous public hearings over the past year to gather community input and roll out plans to relocate the Jackson Park track and field. In fact, the District held nine public meetings as part of the South Lakefront Planning Process during which the project was discussed. The Park District also attended additional meetings organized by community stakeholders to keep residents informed of the projects timeline.
During these meetings, representative restated plans to complete the track and field in time to accommodate the local schools’ fall sports schedules. At no time did the Park District representatives indicate the project would be delayed, as evidenced by the Lakefront Protection application filed in 2 January approved in May, giving the district authority to proceed. Prior to filing the application, the district also mailed notices to all property owners within 500 feet of the site.
As recently as April 11, Park Distict representatives presented information about the Jackson P ark track and field, including a schedule to start construction this summer. Plans for the project were heard and approved by the Chicago Plan Commission and documents relating to the track and field, including a tree removal diagram were posted on the City’s website in May. Contrary to the Sun-times accusations, the Chicago Park District is not violating any federal processes, as this is a local project and is not subject to federal review.
Despite the Editorial Board’s criticism, this process is neither premature nor bad form. The Chicago Park District operated transparently and in a manner that demonstrates responsibility and respect for the community being served.

More about the track and to think about: First, this is an opportunity to get a renewed and better multi-sport field. It may not be completely ideal because the field will be wider and accommodate more sports and amenities but the site is a bit narrower creating a squeeze on layout partly to save trees around the perimeter (excepting numerous dead and dying ashes such as along Stony Island). Some replacement and new trees are in the drawings, but numerous trees in the center are lost. We should insist at the least that net lost trees be replaced promptly within the park. A possible ball field east of Cornell Drive has not been resolved yet. Another ball field needs to find a replacement site outside of Jackson Park, according to a federal review finding from the Urban Parks/National Parks Service. That will doubtless be part of the quest to assemble new parkland in Woodlawn (a suite of city-owned lots in the 64th-Kimbark area is said to be identified) that could also make up some acreage or green space lost to the OPC in Jackson Park.

In other news, the Foundation and the hired Lakeside Alliance general contractor and the hiring and training consultant firm and newly hired monitor are taking first steps in recruiting, training and developing a subcontracting and career workforce team that meet the promised high local and minority standards. Lakefront Alliance is now sited at Black United Fund of Illinois, 1750 E. 71st St. http://www.lakesidealliance.com. And, as reported in its just released Annual Report, the Foundation has started and participated in community, antiviolence, and civic leadership training initiatives and issued a broad commitment of promises document. Nevertheless a coalition seeks a community benefits agreement enforced by city ordinance that includes 30 percent affordable/low income set aside in new housing, a tax freeze, rent increase regulation, independent monitoring of jobs for OPC and other development, support for schools, a community investment fund, and means of addressing forces and practices, and lack of services, hurting communities.

 

Schedule of meetings and process (See in above feature or the Section 106 website for latest schedule.)

Section 106 Environmental and Historical Review- see in our page for findings, background.
March 29, occurred- Section 106 Environmental and Historical Resources Impact Federal Review Meeting 2.
The reports (Historic Properties Inventory, Archeology, and Appendices) are at https://tinyURL.com/jpimprovements. Send comments to DPD@cityofchicago.org.
The actual urls of the Historic Inventory, Appendices, and Archeology reports are https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/2018-03-19-HPI-Report.pdf. https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/Appendices.zip.
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/jackson/2018-03-19-Arch-Report-pdf.
30-day public comment period ends April 19.
And now up is a Tutorial on the Highway 4(f) review. More reports will appear from the tinyurl website.
The Effects assessment and possible recommended mitigations phase starts with meeting in May (workshop style). Summaries of findings and background will be in our page, www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/Section_106_OPCMobilityHistoricReview_2017.htm.

THE PROCESS.

Note that there are other reviews required (more on these below)

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)

This will focus on impacts on the environment broadly defined as including wildlife and habitat, air and water quality, noise, traffic, and socioeconomic factors.

Section 4(f)- see Tutorial- link in https://tinyurl.com/jpimprovements

A Section 4(f) review is also triggered by the CDOT road proposals under the US Department of Transportation Act, - impact on parkland and historic sites during transportation project development.
A 4(f) review is especially important because it requires substantive consideration of alternatives to proposed road projects. The role of this review seems unclear as projects (as is the case of Section 106) cannot be denied just mitigated on the basis of findings, but on the other hand Section 106 findings become part of the process for 4(f).

UPARR (Urban Parks And Recreational Recovery Act)- a recommendation with regard to displaced baseball fields due to OPC is in process.

Because improvements and programs in Jackson Park were funded by several grants under the UPARR program, recreational areas in the park cannot be converted to non-recreational use unless certain conditions are met and approval by the National Park Service is forthcoming. One of the conditions is provision of appropriate alternate parkland.)

General schedule

January/February 2018
Public meeting(s) hosted by CPD in preparation for final steps of the South Lakefront Framework Plan update

Mid-February 2018
Section 106 Historic Properties Inventory Report issued for review by consulting parties and the general public
(includes any changes to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for architecture or the list of historic resources within the APE boundary)

Mid-February 2018
Public meeting(s) hosted by the Obama Foundation, CDOT, and CPD in preparation for Plan Commission hearing

Late February 2018
Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting #2
(presentation of Historic Properties Inventory Report and process for evaluation of potential effects)

Late March 2018
Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting #3
(presentation of effects assessment and initial discussion of mitigation measures)

April 2018
Final South Lakefront Framework Plan update presented to CPD Board

April 2018
Plan Commission Hearing on OPC Planned Development application and the associated OPC, CDOT and CPD Lakefront Protection Ordinance applications

Late April 2018
Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting #4
(presentation of draft mitigation measures and draft Memorandum of Agreement)

May 2018
City Council Hearing on OPC Planned Development application

May-December 2018
Federal process continues (NEPA and Section 106)

ABOUT - Part 1, the Announcement document sent to the Consulting Party organizations November 2017

Environmental Review of Jackson Park Improvements
Updated Nov. 20, 2017 (December update is the same)

Introduction
The City of Chicago, through the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), is working on several roadway improvement projects in Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance that will support the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) and the South Lakefront Plan update.

When these projects are completed, they will support a revitalized Jackson Park. Since it was originally designed by renowned landscape architects Olmsted & Vaux in 1871, Jackson Park has undergone multiple transformations in the last one hundred years which have altered the original design, including as the site of the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893.

The Chicago Park District’s South Lakefront Framework Plan (1999) outlined many of the proposed improvements now under consideration. The Park District is engaged in a planning process to update the South Lakefront Framework Plan, specifically for Jackson Park and South Shore Cultural Center. The 2017 Framework Plan update will create a plan for the next ten years to respond to neighborhood needs and historic context, provide a vision for improvements, serve as a planning tool and outline priorities to deliver improvements in a coordinated manner.

Various proposed park projects and accompanying roadway changes within Jackson Park require a federal-level environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For these purposes, the city will prepare a document known as an “Environmental Assessment” (EA), which will be formally titled “Obama Presidential Center Mobility Improvements to Support the South Lakefront Framework Plan”.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
NEPA and Section 106 are separate – but related – processes. When both are required, they must be completed concurrently, under the direction of a lead federal agency. In this case, the lead agency is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City will conduct the review process in conjunction with the Federal agencies.
Purpose of Environmental Review

The purpose of this review is to provide a process for FHWA to work closely with the City of Chicago, the State Historic Preservation Office, other federal and state agencies, and the public to evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate the effects of the projects.
For more information on FHWA’s NEPA process, please visit their website at: www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp

Both NEPA and Section106 require that federal agencies study the impacts of proposed plans on historic sites, buildings, and other cultural resources. Jackson Park is listed on the National Register as part of the Jackson Park and Midway Plaisance Historic Landscape District. The evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources, including Jackson Park, will be an important component of the review process.

Public Participation
Community input will aid the City and Federal agencies in the identification of important cultural landscape features, architectural and ecological resources, and impacts to these resources.
To facilitate these discussions, the City will host community events as we move through the process during 2017 and 2018. All members of the public are invited to attend.

Meeting dates will be posted on this webpage as the project advances. Certain parties, such as the State Historical Preservation Officer and local government representatives, are designated “consulting parties” in the Section 106 process.
Other individuals or organizations may be invited to become consulting parties as well, or they may request consulting party status. More information on the role and designation of a consulting party can be found in the Citizen’s Guide to the Section 106 Process.
More information on the Section 106 process can be found at the following link: www.achp.gov/106summary.html.

Schedule of Events
This schedule will be updated to include public meetings for the South Lakefront Planning process, the Obama Presidential Center and the Federal Review process for Jackson Park as they are announced.
To complete Section 106, the City will host the following Section 106 Task Force meetings

Task Force Meeting #1: Task Force Kick-off Meeting/Overview of Historic Resources
10 a.m. to noon, Friday Dec.1, 2017 South Side YMCA 6330 S. Stony Island Ave.
Task Force Meeting #2: Results of Historic Resources Identification in the Study area and potential effects (occurred March 29)
Task Force Meeting #3: Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures (in May)
Task Force Meeting #4: Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures (if there are measures recommended and a Memorandum of Agreement is required)

Section 106 Task Force meetings are intended to be working meetings for cooperating agencies and consulting parties.
Parallel to the Section 106 Task Force meetings, the project team will host two public meetings to discuss additional topics under NEPA and to provide updates on Section 106 Task Force progress. The NEPA process will culminate in a formal public hearing.
The proposed OPC project and proposed roadway improvements will also be vetted by the Chicago Plan Commission and City Council through the required public hearing process.

Additional Resources
Area of Potential Effect – Archaeology Map
This draft map depicts the areas of Jackson Park where historic artifacts may be found underground and will guide the excavation process to confirm.
Area of Potential Effect – Architecture Map
This draft map depicts the boundary around Jackson Park where environmental impacts will be evaluated. The boundary is larger than the park itself to consider any impacts to adjacent properties or properties within the viewshed of the proposed development.
Proposed Improvements to Jackson Park
• Chicago Park District’s South Lakefront Framework Plan Update (SLFP)
• Obama Presidential Center (OPC)

Part 2- Section 106. Process and Documents, Evaluation (summary by Gary Ossewaarde of the handout and presentation at the Kickoff Working Meeting at South Side YMCA December 1, 2017.
(In quotes are from the notice of review process to consulting parties or materials in the site for this review, https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements late 2107.) 76 organizations, groups, and institutions/stakeholders were invited to be consulting parties and 40-60 responded or joined later. These have a demonstrated legal or economic interest or concern about historic properties. Locally these include Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, Hyde Park Historical Society, Jackson Park Advisory Council, Jackson Park Watch, Midway Park Advisory Council, and Nichols Park Advisory Council. Note there is a dual public engagement process: Invite-only working meetings of cooperating agencies and the consulting parties and two public meetings and a public hearing on the resultant Environmental Assessment. See also links below.
Where can I submit comments? dpd@cityofchicago.org.
Formal designation for the proposed resultant Environmental Assessment (EA):
Obama Presidential Center Mobility Improvements to Support the South Lakefront Framework Plan.

Purpose of Review: “The purpose of this review is to provide a process for FHWA to work closely with the City of Chicago, the State Historic Preservation Office, other federal and state agencies, and the public to evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate the effects of the projects.

Why is this necessary?
“Various proposed park projects [most notably the Obama Presidential Center] and accompanying roadway changes within Jackson Park [on the National Register of Historic Places] require a federal-level environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” For these purposes, the city will prepare a document known as an “Environmental Assessment” (EA), which will be formally titled “Obama Presidential Center Mobility Improvements to Support the South Lakefront Framework Plan”.” The review will also inform the revision of the 1999 South Lakefront Framework Plan- a process in progress.

Who and what?
Section 106 review has started. The NEPA Environmental review is to be announced in early 2018. The two must be completed concurrently. Important in the process is evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources, including cultural landscape features, architectural and ecological resources.

The conveners and conductors of the work are the City of Chicago Department of Planning (Eleanor Gorski an Abby Monroe) and Development and Department of Transportation (John Sadler).
The Lead Agency is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Links to information on the process:
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp and
www.achp.gov/106summary.html and http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf.
About the national registry and its conditions for Jackson Park
(Jackson Park and Midway Plaisance Historic Landscape District )-
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cde/supp_info/jackson-park-historic-register.pdf.

The resource maps:
Archeological: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/2017-10-18-APE_Archeological_Overall.pdf.
Architectural and Historic structures and features (which covers a “viewshed” from one to several blocks surrounding Jackson, South Shore Cultural Center, and much of the Midway)
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/supp_info/2017-10-27-DRAFT-APE_Historical_Overall.pdf.

The series of Working Meetings of the Cooperating Agencies and the Consulting Parties began with a Kickoff December 1, with which included a power point on the process, a proposed Historic Resources Inventory of Structures and Cultural Resources, and the Historical and Archeological Resources Inventory maps. Many groups submitted comments.

Task Force Working meetings 2-4 had not yet been scheduled- they will cover (2) Results of the Historic Resources Identification Study Area (comments due January 5),

(3 and 4) Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures.

Two public meetings and the public hearing on the proposed Effects Assessment and Mitigation Measures.

From the Section 106 Consulting Parties Kick off Meeting
OPC Mobility Improvements to Support the South Lakefront Framework Plan
This process does not focus on the golf proposal.
Only the following from a Framework Plan requires federal review-
Roadway improvements due to roadway closures – under Federal Highway Administration
Potential conversion of parkland to non-recreational use under Urban Parks Recreation and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) - under National Park Service

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires federal agencies to assess environmental effects prior to making decisions.
Essential elements under NPEA: Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Impacts, Mitigation, Public Involvement, Interagency Coordination, Documentation
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Agencies must take into account the effects on historic properties and
Afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings

What are the “undertakings” here?
Roadway improvements with potential federal funding and
The OPC and related Framework Plan improvements (the said potential conversion of parkland to non-recreational use as defined in UPARR.
Section 106 regulations describe the process for identifying historic properties and assess effects and mitigations.

What historic properties? Those listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 106 review is done under NEPA because NEPA oversees Historic Resources (others are Noise, Traffic, Wildlife/Habitat, Air and Water Quality, and Socioeconomics). Under Historic Resources mandate is Section 106, under which are Archeology and Architecture.
NEPA process is led by FHWA in coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies. Chicago DPD and CDOT will facilitate. (Who says so? Advisory Council on Historic preservation – ACHP).)

What are the steps?
Initiate (determine undertaking, coordinate with other reviews, identify consulting parties, develop public input)
Identify resources (through Spring 2018)-
(determine “Area of Potential Effect- APE,
Identify reasonable resources and eligibility and review with consulting parties)
Assess if there are adverse effects (Spring and Summer 2018)
(Apply criteria, review with consulting parties)
Resolve adverse effect if needed (Summer/Fall 2018)
(develop alternatives to avoid, minimize or mitigate) adverse effects and review with consulting parties; develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Hold hearing
Proceed with the project.

Parallel: project team host public meetings on added NEPA topics (see above) and provide updates
Establishing the Areas of Potential Effect (APE)
Definition: APE is the geographic area where the project could have an effect on historic resources.
Archaeology. Method of determination- considering areas of disturbance
Architecture. Method of determination-Considering the full range of effects including direct physical, visual, and audial.
The Archaeological Survey.

The Illinois State Archeological Survey (ISAS) is conducting the survey to identify potential underground historic resources, focusing on locations where there could be potential for ground disturbance. 11/12/17-Spring 2018.
Architecture Scope within Jackson Park and the parts of the Midway (east of the viaduct)including buildings and structures, landscape features, sculpture/art and site furnishings.
Potentially eligible buildings will be researched to provide description, history and development, and National Register eligibility.
Architecture Scope outside Jackson Park and Midway (i.e. west of the viaduct)
Hyde Park Area- majority already included in the Hyde Park-Kenwood National Register District.
Woodlawn Area- Reconnaissance-level survey to identify historic properties.

Criteria. Properties must be 50 years old or older and meet with at least one of the following (to be eligible for National Register listing):
A- associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or
B- associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or
C- embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or
D- that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
It must possess sufficient integrity to convey its significance.
Properties of exceptional significance but less than 50 years old may also be considered.

Jackson Park. Historic layers and elements that support the Registry designation.
-Original Olmsted and Vaux Plan, 1871
-Olmsted, Codman, Burnham & Root design for the Columbian Exposition, 1893
-Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot plan to transform the site back to parkland, 1895-97
-Golf course addition (first public course west of Alleghenies), 1899
-Beaches and shore, including granite and two other beaches, 63rd beachhouse,1880s-1919
-Fine Arts Pavilion becomes Field Columbian museum then Museum of Science and Industry, 1893-1933
-Paul Douglas Nature Sanctuary created, community gets removal of Nike missile base 60s (-1974)
-Jackson Park and Midway Plaisance listed on National Register, 1972.

Olmsted’s Design Principles
-The Lake with broad views of Lake Michigan from a Shore Drive
-Fields of pastoral landscapes designed for strolling, tennis and croquet, and baseball, with golf added later
-Lagoons that were secluded and provided scenery from shore and boats
-Columbian Museum that added formal architectural design

Currently Identified Historic Features (THE INVENTORY OF RESOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR NR (draft)) for Jackson Park and the Midway-
27: 15 of these are buildings and structures, 6 are bridges, and 4 are monuments. By location, not priority- Working Mtgs are to consider
1. Iowa Building. 1936-40
2. Music Court Comfort Station. 1888, 1936
3. Bowling Green Clubhouse. 1927
4. Music Court Bridge. 1904-6
5. East Bridge (Clarence Darrow). 1880, 1893-5, 1957-63
6. Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago landmark). 1893
7. Perennial Garden. [1936]
8. Cheney-Goode Memorial Bench. 1932
9. 59th Street Viaduct. 1893 (and 1926?)
10. Masaryk Monument. 1955
11. Linne Monument. 1891/1976
12. English Comfort Station (by the track?). 1934
13. Japanese Garden. [1893 predecessor features, evolved from 1930s at least]
14. Shelter/Comfort Station at Driving Range. 1936
15. 59th Street Inlet Bridge. 1895
16. Middle Bridge on Hayes Dr. 1901
17. Southern Shore Yacht Club. 1934
18. Coast Guard life saving Station. 1906
19. Statue of the Republic (Chicago Landmark). 1918
20. Cecil Partee Golf Shelter. 1900 page 5
21. Maintenance Building. 1936
22. Jackson Park Field House. 1957
23. Jackson Park Yacht Club. 1906-30
24. La Rabida Children’s Hospital. 1932
25. Golf Shelter (9th hole at 67th-so. Sh. Dr. -Marquette). 1912
26. South Haven (Animal) Bridge. 1904
27. 63rd Street Beach House (Chicago Landmark). 1919
In addition, the following Landscape Features are listed:
Circulation Roads and Paths. Golf Course. Berms and Sunken Lawn Panels. Historic Walks and Balustrades. Paved Granite Beach. Japanese Garden (also listed above). Perennial Garden (also listed above). and Naturalistic Designs including plantings and waterway systems, lagoons and Islands.
Added to the inventory of contributing properties since December 2018:
1893 La Rabida peninsula historic promenade and walls
67th St. promenade (below/at South Shore Drive)

NEXT STEPS
2. IDENTIFY historic resources (through Spring 2018).
Determine Area of Potential Effect (APE)
Reasonable identification of historic resources and eligibility
Review with consulting parties
Then 3 ASSESS adverse effects including criteria and
4 RESOVE any adverse effects-
-alternatives to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects,
-review with consulting partners
Draw up Memorandum of Agreement MOA

How Step 2 (Identify) progresses

- Project team identifies potential historic properties (eligible or listed on NRHP) in the APE
-Team prepare document HISTORIC PROPERTIES INVENTORY REPORT with documentary photos and analysis of historic eligibility.
-Report is reviewed by public and consulting partners, comments collected.
-In consultation with the state SHPO, FWA makes ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
-All Consulting Parties receive a copy of the Historic Properties inventory Report by email at least a week prior to next meeting.
For meeting 2, consulting parties are asked to come prepared to discuss the HISTORIC PROPERTIES INVENTORY REPORT
Engage in group discussion on the same
Start to assess effects to historic properties.

(End of presentation- see comments given at the meeting, below.)

Brief version of the December 1 2017 meeting

Section 106 historical and archaeological review of park resources and proposal impacts was started and a Task Force kickoff meeting was held December 1. (Watch for a similar, coterminous process for the NEPA Environmental Review to be announced.) See more details in the November minutes (in Dec. Newsletter) and in the extensive power point online at https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements where comments-- including about specific or missed historical resources in the park can be submitted. Admittance to the small hall was mostly limited to 2 representatives from each the many Consulting Parties, although there was a live-streaming overflow room (not full). The presentation was quite detailed and the floor was opened to many questions about process and specifics and statements, some expressing strong support for or else skepticism about the proposals and/ or their potential effects on the historic features.
Some of the comments: Golf and South Shore Cultural Center footprints have to be in this or have a review- please clarify. The rest of the Midway should be included in the study area. The site has shifted- please study that. Are the costs a potential damage? It’s exciting to see everybody interested in Jackson Park because we think it’s an amazing place- Olmsted would be proud. These reviews cannot be successful without knowing the tree etc. loses, gains and changes. Will the review consider effects of road changes including on access to harbors? The Obama Center will partner with Hyde Park High for a great gain. Jackson Park Highlands survey overwhelmingly supported the Center; I view the Museum building as a beacon of hope and change. It’s good the process is happening but it needs to answer all the questions and deal with all the concerns. If a large set of adverse effects are found, could there be a basis to recommend cancellation/movement elsewhere? (answer- this process does not provide for a go/no go recommendation but requirement to fix found problems before work can co forward). Michal Strautmanis of the Foundation told the Tribune after the meeting, “.. we saw a lot of interest and a lot of excitement. What could be seen as an arcane historic review process… we had people who are interested in the process come participate…. That type of civic engagement is exciting.”

The next steps for the project are to identify historic resources and their eligibility (under criteria) and the “Area of Potential Effect” including an inventory with eligibility determinations, and to review these with the consulting parties. After: to assess found adverse effects (which also have criteria) and review and resolve towards a recommendation, public hearings and Memoranda of Agreement. The next sets of meetings are for the Task Force teams with the consulting parties.

The potential inventory sites to be evaluated in the “Currently Identified Historic Features” includes these 27 structure
1. Iowa Building. 2. Music Court Comfort Station. 3. Bowling Green Clubhouse. 4. Music Court Bridge.
5. East Bridge (Clarence Darrow). 6. Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago landmark). 7. Perennial Garden. 8. Cheney-Goode Memorial Bench. 9. 59th Street Viaduct. 10. Masaryk Monument. 11. Linne Monument. 12. English Comfort Station. 13. Japanese Garden. 14. Shelter/Comfort Station at Driving Range. 15. 59th Street Inlet Bridge. 16. Middle Bridge on Hayes Dr. 17. Southern Shore Yacht Club. 18. Coast Guard Station. 19. Statue of the Republic (Chicago Landmark). 20. Cecil Partee Golf Shelter. 21. Maintenance Building. 22. Jackson Park Field House. 23. Jackson Park Yacht Club. 24. La Rabida Children’s Hospital.
25. Golf Shelter (at Promontory Drive). 26. South Haven (Animal) Bridge. 27. 63rd Street Beach House (Chicago Landmark).
15 of these are buildings and structures, 6 are bridges, and 4 are monuments.
In addition, the following Landscape Features are listed:
Circulation Roads and Paths. Golf Course. Berms and Sunken Lawn Panels. Historic Walks and Balustrades. Paved Granit Beach. Japanese Garden (also listed above), Perennial Garden (also listed above), and Naturalistic Designs including plantings and waterway systems, lagoons and Islands.

________________________________

From December 2017 JPAC Newsletter - November minutes

Environmental and Section 106 review and surveys of historical/archeological resources/ environmental impacts of proposed projects. Eleanor Gorski of the Chicago Department of Planning described the scope of the work, required by law when funds are to be spent in public spaces that are on the National Register of Historic Places (i.e. Jackson and Midway1972) to assess resources and what might be adversity impacted and need mitigation. The two reviews will be led by the Federal Highway Administration, but a host of federal, state and city agencies including EPA and Illinois Archeological Survey are involved. The Chicago Dept. of Planning and Development, with Transportation (together the “Applicant”) will do the heavy lifting of the survey and the task force that includes a large number of Consulting Party (CP) organizations and groups and the public hearing. JPAC is among nearly 60 participating CPs. The boundary of historic resources extends 1 to several blocks beyond Jackson and South Shore parks and Midway Plaisance east of the railway, areas that are or may be eligible to be in historic districts or the National Register. Foundations of former historic structures on the Obama Center proposed footprint, work-affected roadways and a set of spots throughout the park will be bored and probed at the 6’, 12’ and 24’ levels. The physical work (started) is expected to take at least several months. Task Force kickoff invite meeting is December 1. Visit https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements where reports and meetings will posted and comments taken. Members said they welcome not only the review itself and the chance for the public to weigh in on a new set of matters but also the opportunity to learn more of the park’s great past, many incarnations, and design principles.

From December 2017 JPAC Newsletter - news p 4

Section 106 historical and archaeological review of park resources and proposal impacts was started and a Task Force kickoff meeting was held December 1. (Watch for a similar, coterminous process for the NEPA Environmental Review to be announced.) See more details in the November minutes above and in the extensive power point online at https://tinyurl.com/JPImprovements where comments-- including about specific or missed historical resources in the park can be submitted. [This is not current- submit to dpd@cityofchicago.org.] Admittance to the small hall was mostly limited to 2 representatives from each the many Consulting Parties, although there was a live-streaming overflow room (not full). The presentation was quite detailed and the floor was opened to many questions about process and specifics and statements, some expressing strong support for or else skepticism about the proposals and/ or their potential effects on the historic features.

Some of the comments: Golf and South Shore Cultural Center footprints have to be in this or have a review- please clarify. The rest of the Midway should be included in the study area. The site has shifted- please study that. Are the costs a potential damage? It’s exciting to see everybody interested in Jackson Park because we think it’s an amazing place- Olmsted would be proud. These reviews cannot be successful without knowing the tree etc. loses, gains and changes. Will the review consider effects of road changes including on access to harbors? The Obama Center will partner with Hyde Park High for a great gain. Jackson Park Highlands survey overwhelmingly supported the Center; I view the Museum building as a beacon of hope and change. It’s good the process is happening but it needs to answer all the questions and deal with all the concerns. If a large set of adverse effects are found, could there be a basis to recommend cancellation/movement elsewhere? (answer- this process does not provide for a go/no go recommendation but requirement to fix found problems before work can co forward). Michal Strautmanis of the Foundation told the Tribune after the meeting, “.. we saw a lot of interest and a lot of excitement. What could be seen as an arcane historic review process… we had people who are interested in the process come participate…. That type of civic engagement is exciting.”

The next steps for the project are for the project with Task Force to identify historic resources and their eligibility (under criteria) and the “Area of Potential Effect” including an inventory with eligibility determinations, and to review these with the consulting parties. After: assess any found adverse effects (which also have criteria) and review and resolve towards a recommendation, public hearings and Memoranda of Agreement.

One person's stabs at comments. (See also comments at the December 1 meeting- above)
By Gary Ossewaarde

Section 106 Comment at dpd@cityofchicago.org.
Attn: Eleanor Gorski or Abby Monroe, Chicago Dept. of Planning and Development.

By Gary Ossewaarde, Jackson Park Advisory Council Secretary, garyossewaarde@yahoo.com.
I am presenting the following as mine, not official communication of JPAC. If they should be in another format or sent to another place, please let me know.
Comments on the Historic Properties Inventory Report.
I have not received the report so can only comment on what was in the Kickoff meeting document.

Darrow Bridge is listed as a historic feature. It is on the National Register (as part of the whole park, not in itself, apparently?) It is not listed as having City Landmark Designation, but it is said it is included as subsidiary to the Museum designation- is that true, and when was the Museum declared a Chicago Landmark? It would seem not to be effected except that the coming of the OPC and replacement of Cornell Drive with new paths to create a “campus” with MSI would be encouragement to replace/restore the bridge.

I presume the final Report will prioritize the features. Will Chicago Landmark Designation have any role in priorities?

Were no features more recent than 50 years considered potentially eligible? If so but not deemed special enough to be included, they should be noted if excluded just because of the year of building, since they may be eligible later-- caution should be given regarding changes to them.

How much does listing as eligible preclude changes, and what kinds and degree of changes to them, especially if no impact from the project is considered likely? Example: some scenarios for the Framework Plan suggest moving monuments or structures such as the Statue of the Republic. I think moving of the Cheney-Goode monument to greater prominence and recognition as part of a Women’s History Square would be much to the good whether there is any garage for OPC on the east end of the Midway or not.
Likewise, some could be repurposed and so have interior changes- example the former Coast Guard Station. Other structures such as Darrow Bridge may have to accommodate modern bridge codes.

Among features that, unless OPC designs are changed, will definitely be greatly altered is the Perennial Garden. Is the new design precluded if the current garden concept is considered an eligible priority?

Certain historic landscape and circulation features are only implicitly mentioned, but I think merit consideration in their own right—the Music Court and the “hill” and fortress where the original WCE La Rabida monastery replica stood and the reproduction Columbus ships were moored, at the end of Promontory Drive circle. Possibly also the historic “Jewish” beach on the Silurian reef shore east of La Rabida (the reef itself is still there).

I do not consider the current Cornell highway to be an historic road, but it was a country park road under Olmsted’s plans so even if removed and converted to bike and pedestrian use and not just softened, the replacement should approximate the original alignment and be plain as a park arterial path.

As to effects of the OPC on historic features. First, OPC structures and that fortunately are not on top of underground features (mainly WCE structure foundations) but they seem to directly abut- excavation work mitigation such as coffering may be necessary. This includes the Perennial Garden if that is ultimately to be altered, and possibly to-be-vacated east Midway Plaisance Drive.
The only off site historic feature in Jackson Park that it seems to me might be affected is the Statue of the Republic depending on changes to Hayes Drive/Richards intersection due to the OPC needs.

Will golf consolidation likely need a separate assessment? Seems to be "yes" once it passes beyond concept stage.

Tree replacement including of some clusters will be a major consequence of OPC the work as well as removal of Cornell Drive and adding lanes to stony Island and turning radii etc on Hayes and on Lake Shore Drive- presumably that will be considered under landscape as well as later in the environmental survey.

 

MEETING 2 ON THE INVENTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY REPORTS MARCH 29 2018

The second meeting was held March 29 at Logan Center. See reports links in https://tinyurl.com/jpimprovements.
Blair Kamin published an excellent preview and summary in the March 25 Tribune, page (Link to follow). Here is what this writer (GMO) knows so far:
The IDOT archeological survey- IHAS Technical Report 184 (237 pages!) turned up fascinating remnants, especially from the Columbian Exposition. (Archeologists are asking the Obama Foundation to display some in the OPC Museum.) However, the report by state officials (including the chief archeologist for the Illinois Dept. of Transportation Brad Koldehoff and under auspices of ISAS Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana) says that none of the artifacts, although interesting, provide substantial new knowledge about the park and therefore do not merit their listing, in themselves, on the National Register of Historic Places. Such finding has to be vetted and affirmed by the process including state preservation officials (the agents under the National Trust Act), of course. Such finding could slow approvals and building of the OPC considerably.
In addition to the archeology report, the updated Inventory of historic properties affected by the OPC-- this is expected to be much more contentious and has elicited the most public comment by far.
The archeological survey, conducted by the Illinois State Archeological Survey (ISAS), began in late 2017, dug or bored at seven sites in Jackson Park and the east end of the Midway likely to feel impacts from OPC disturbance or hold things that might feel an impact. They did NOT find categories that would raise a red flag--building foundations, statuary, or intact columns, for example, according to the report written by Clare Tolmie and Paula Porubcan Branstner of the ISAS.
They instead found 9,841 artifacts from various periods, definitely including the Columbian Exposition. "Many," Kamin says, were found on the OPC footprint, including on the south end of the OPC site lots of fragments from Fair buildings made of staff-- mostly white, but some of red (8) and one of amber colors suggesting they are from the Louis Sullivan-designed Transportation Building (near the OPC site). The staff (plaster) fragments may well help in identifying the shades of Fair buildings, which flourished before color photography. In the far southeast corner of Jackson Park were found remnants illustrating the Fair's role in promoting or illustrating urban planning and order and the role adn advance of technology, such as a giant incinerator- with lots of burned bones from food processing or waste. Also found there were graphite rods from the Fair's lamps and bits of cups and saucers bearing seal of Chase and Sanborn Coffee-- which sort of personalize the Fair at small scale.

MARCH 29 MEETING AT LOGAN CENTER

What we learned and what's new. And interpretations thereof.

Sequencing of reviews etc. The city said it wants to do things in Jackson Park, an Historic park. This triggers a Section 106 and other reviews. These reviews have to give some initial guidance, but for the reviews, especially NEPA, to move to conclusion, THE CITY (LOCAL PARTNER) HAS TO "DEFINE" WHAT IT WANTS TO DO (i.e. give formal initial approvals (for OPC, roads, track and field) in this case by the CHICAGO PLAN COMMISSION) and show that what it wants to do is in and consistent with a plan for stewardship and planning for the entire park, in this case the SOUTH FRAMEWORK PLAN, by the CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT. ALL THESE PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE FROM THE OUTPUT OF THE FEDERAL REVIEWS. (The Plan Commission must say that in its decision.) This is necessary so the reviews can determine if the "it" is acceptable or not.
The Section 106 May meeting then follows--will find either "No adverse Effects" or "Adverse Effects", spelled out- in that case goes to stage of recommending minimizing or mitigating steps, with a Memorandum of Agreement if deemed necessary.

The Section 106 looks mainly at identification of historic properties (starting with mapping) in the park (especially project areas) and outside affected by projects (viewscape). It's in two parts, archeological (underground) and architecture plus landscape. For architecture they look for whether the project will create disturbance to qualifying remains or whether significant new knowledge would be found from more extensive boring or excavation-- they found it would not. For architecture/landscape they decided to add the rest of the whole Midway to the boundaries of the Affected Properties Areas (mainly because of views and shadows of the OPC tower.) They chose not to add Jackson Park Highlands or all of South Shore (because studies show the OPC and road changes would not be visible beyond the first block that is already in the boundaries), all of Hyde Park or all the landmarked properties therein, or 47th to 87th, or Washington Park- latter outside the Jackson Park Landscape and Midway National Register district. Not removed: Promontory Point.
In looking at the outside architecture in the APEs, they surveyed and documented the properties, especially that might be eligible for NR designation, that are older than 40 years but build since the creation of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District (in the 70s?) or that might be eligible as they reach 40 years old.
(Eligibility criteria: associated with or providing information about events, persons, are characteristic of a type or style or likely to yield new information.)

Added to the inventory of contributing properties since December:
1893 La Rabida peninsula historic promenade and walls
67th St. promenade (below/at South Shore Drive)

What is NOT subject to the federal reviews. ROAD CLOSURES (vs. road "improvements).
The reviews do not dictate certain preservation actions such as whether a feature should be recommended for the National Register-0nly that certain features are deemed eligible.
(The inventory listing does clear one hurdle for nominations because the review uses federal guideline for assessment for nomination as eligible.)

Defining the period of significance for Jackson Park- 1870-1953. This was challenged by persons in the audience. The decision was based on the impact of changes from the Nike base, filling in the South Lagoon, and road changes that deviated more sharply than in the past from Olmsted plans (although as pointed out there had been road changes in the past, documented in the reports. ). They will take another look at the end date, but indicated they will not likely undertake new excavations, study, or change the inventory of eligible structures et al beyond 1953.

In the Effects identification portion of the review, there will need to be reconciliation of the priorities and findings of the National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration. For cultural landscapes they brought in expert consultants. They found lots of changes and diminutions. The reference point was the plan of 1895.
The Effects Report will be brought out in May
after looking at all the reports and comments, and following National Register Bulletins 15 and 18 and looking especially at impacts on RECREATION, CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND BUILDINGS. (This meeting will be workshop style.)

CDOT's rationale for the road changes are both requirement for the OPC and for mobility improvements for the park and neighborhoods.

The OPC has presented its Programming Compatibility statement to the National Park Service. The parties are in discussion.

Recreation. Two grants (federal money) from the Urban Parks program were received for Jackson Park in the past, making it a UPARR park, which triggers a UPARR review when recreation facilities will be converted to non-recreation use. Recommendation is that two baseball fields will be displaced and must be replaced, one in the park (as is planned) and the other, if not in Jackson, must be in a nearby park. The Park District has proposed placing it at the east end of the Midway which area it has prioritized for renewal. There has been objection from the Midway PAC on grounds that a Children's Interactive Garden was suggested for that location in the 1899 framework plan. Noted elsewhere- there was strong objection to Framework designation of that space for a garden--it was long used for recreation fields esp. for youth and kids. When a garden was placed there, it ruined the drainage.
The Section 106 parties and National Park service are of the position that nay recreational use(s) is acceptable ut it must be active (not a meditative space)- whether an interactive garden would qualify had not yet been determined. The baseball field could go in another existing or new park. Note, once a replacement field is built, it will in the future be subject to such review if there are planned changes--it's carried over.
There will be a community process to decide the issue this summer.
The UPARR review also considers whether an recreational use is lost to the transportation/roadway changes.

The OPC must stage construction only on site, in its footprint.

Comments, questions, statements at the meeting (including the webinar)

Q and A about the replacement 2nd ball field- see section above.

What happens to the found artifacts- can they be available for such things as education, historic tours, exhibits?
A. Yes, such are designated for parks, will be curated by the Park District and made available for exhibition.

Asked abut why not survey effects on the highlands
A. OPC not visible from Highlands, which is already a conservation area without need to research again. [ed. note.- probably also time and money]. The criteria are in relation to a project and effects of the project- for Section 106 review on the historical integrity.
But highways effect?


More about the Highway 4(f) process
A. See tutorial linked in the tinyurl.com/jpimprovements website. US Dept. of Transportation (DOT) must evaluate alternatives for the sake of conservation and minimizing effects if adverse effects are found.

Request for more vegetation analysis, especially for highway adverse effects.

Request for more information on the inventory places-- why candidates for nomination, priorities? so can focus research toward nominating the most significant and seek funds for needed restorations and repairs [examples- 59th St. bridge and pier, affected by LSD widening, Coast Guard Station, Burnham comfort station, Iowa building].

Asserts the road changes wouldn't be proposed, whether for conditions mitigation and improvements if not for OPC proposal, and just accepted as necessary despite lots and lots of likely effects.
Order and timing /staging of the road changes is not likely to work out without a mess or taking years and years

Show the 1930s plan of Caldwell for the western perimeter (60th to 67th which includes the OPC APE ) and how much of that palette was implemented and remains, and use in determination of adverse effects, including closing of Cornell Dr.
A. Can do that. Note that closing roads is not part of 106 review; will consider effects vs. increased connectivity and access.

Opposed to elimination of any athletic fields in Jackson Park particularly along Hayes Drive. Changing the latter to carry more traffic and eliminate the parking will ruin the value of the Hayes fields for sports teams, families. More free parking is needed in general especially there.

Noted and pleased that the report notes that Jackson Park retains historic integrity despite diminutions. Suggests just narrowing Cornell which might limit expansion of other roads and resulting moving of problems to these other roads. Such widenings are a deviation from Olmsted's drawings and vision as much as the widening of Cornell was.

Said more archeological exploration might find more presence and information on peoples left out of the official story of the Fair, including persons of color and women.

Said advancing a framework plan with the new projects before approval of the latter is putting the cart before the horse.

Said we need the projects including golf for a number of reasons and elimination of the roads for access and safety both for golfers and everyone else including elderly and with disabilities.
A. CDOT noted that biking trail improvements are part of the plans and considerations.

Concerned that 1953 may preclude consideration of worthy later features and changes put in before the 40 years ago cutoff.
A. Wrestled with this and we continue to, but the Nike-related and road changes were striking deviations from Olmsted's vision along with changes in park and recreation visions. Remember that the criteria here is historical significance and integrity. Still, a cutoff does not preclude future considerations-- as (in this study) for structures in the part of APE II in the Hyde Park-Kenwood District-- their study points out what could be eligible there.

Concern that plans for Lake Shore Drive could impact 57th St. Beach and access.
A. Think not but will check.

UPARR recommendation to move a lost baseball field from Jackson to east Midway.
A. There will be a community process in the summer. The UPARR recommendation does not require putting a baseball field there.

Why is OPC going before Plan Commission before this review done?
A. This review / NEPA require that the local partner define the project officially so the review can determine whether it is acceptable. The Plan Commission (and Park District for the Lakefront Plan) will have to include that these plans are subject to change from the reviews.

What is the strategic plan for staging/phasing the construction including particularly the road sections?
A. It's being developed in concert with the various utilities.

Will the nominations be reflected in the 106 report?
A. Yes.

Has the Obama Foundation presented the Programming Plan for the Center to the National Park Service?
A. Yes, and the Foundation is in conversations with the NPS regarding its compatibility.

Roadways have been changing ever since the end of the Fair. Why are those since 1953 deemed deviations when those before are not or less so?
A. We used the NPS criteria and guidelines.

How strong is the NPS UPARR recommendation on what is acceptable recreational replacement, as for the east Midway?
A. There is lots of leeway except the use has to be active. There will be a community process. Parks is committed to fixing that part of the Midway.

Request for more borings in the primary APE and around the park.

Ask about rumors of a large staging area for OPC outside its site.
A. There will be none- it all has to be inside the OPC site. [ed. the Foundation told the Midway PAC separately that it will not use any of the Midway for OPC staging.]

 

 

 

 

 



###