Bill Text: IL SR0891 | 2023-2024 | 103rd General Assembly | Introduced
Bill Title: Expresses support for the legitimate Community Preservation Plan for Promontory Point, Burnham Park, Chicago.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced) 2024-04-09 - Referred to Assignments [SR0891 Detail]
Download: Illinois-2023-SR0891-Introduced.html
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | SENATE RESOLUTION | ||||||
2 | WHEREAS, In August 1993, a Memorandum of Agreement | ||||||
3 | (Agreement) was executed to recognize that the Illinois | ||||||
4 | Shoreline Erosion Interim 3 Project (Project) would affect | ||||||
5 | portions of the Chicago shoreline that are historic properties | ||||||
6 | listed or eligible for listing on the U.S. National Register | ||||||
7 | of Historic Places (NRHP); and
| ||||||
8 | WHEREAS, The Agreement prioritizes the preservation of the | ||||||
9 | historic properties and elements on the shoreline, with repair | ||||||
10 | and rehabilitation to be performed consistent with the | ||||||
11 | Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of | ||||||
12 | Historic Properties and Guidelines for the Treatment of | ||||||
13 | Cultural Landscapes (SOI standards), and aims for a design | ||||||
14 | plan that would lead to a finding of No Adverse Effects (NAE) | ||||||
15 | by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); and
| ||||||
16 | WHEREAS, The Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of | ||||||
17 | Engineers (USACE) has consulted with the Advisory Council on | ||||||
18 | Historic Preservation (ACHP) and SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR Part | ||||||
19 | 800 and Section 106 of the 1965 National Historic Preservation | ||||||
20 | Act to define the Agreement and prioritize the protection of | ||||||
21 | the historic properties at Promontory Point so that the | ||||||
22 | designs and planning for the shoreline management developed | ||||||
23 | for Promontory Point would allow for a finding of No Adverse |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Effect (NAE); and
| ||||||
2 | WHEREAS, The Agreement requires amending because the | ||||||
3 | construction and rehabilitation of the Promontory Point reach | ||||||
4 | of the original Project was not completed; and
| ||||||
5 | WHEREAS, A major component of the uncompleted Project is | ||||||
6 | Promontory Point, a 40-acre peninsula at the south end of | ||||||
7 | Burnham Park, Chicago, comprising the Area of Potential | ||||||
8 | Effects (APE), herein referred to as the "Undertaking"; and
| ||||||
9 | WHEREAS, The scope of the Undertaking includes the | ||||||
10 | pre-design, review, design planning, construction, and | ||||||
11 | maintenance of the step-stone limestone revetment and | ||||||
12 | promenade at Promontory Point for erosion control and storm | ||||||
13 | damage management, and it specifically includes the repair and | ||||||
14 | rehabilitation of the step-stone limestone revetment and | ||||||
15 | promenade at Promontory Point, approximately 3,200 linear feet | ||||||
16 | of shoreline between East 54th and 56th Streets; and
| ||||||
17 | WHEREAS, The step-stone limestone revetment and promenade | ||||||
18 | at Promontory Point is now subject to the continuation and | ||||||
19 | funding of the Project consistent with the Agreement and the | ||||||
20 | SOI standards; and
| ||||||
21 | WHEREAS, Section 8336 of the Water Resources Development |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Act (WRDA) of 2022 in the National Defense Authorization Act | ||||||
2 | for Fiscal Year 2023 appropriates funding to finish the | ||||||
3 | uncompleted sections of the shoreline Project, including | ||||||
4 | Promontory Point; the 2022 Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law, | ||||||
5 | Public Law 117-58, funds an internal, third-party review of | ||||||
6 | Promontory Point; also, a City of Chicago (City) 2023 capital | ||||||
7 | bond funds a $5m design and planning contract for Promontory | ||||||
8 | Point; and
| ||||||
9 | WHEREAS, The Agreement also necessitates amendment because | ||||||
10 | of the 24-year history of commitment and involvement by the | ||||||
11 | local and City-wide community to seek a genuine preservation | ||||||
12 | outcome at Promontory Point; and
| ||||||
13 | WHEREAS, On June 21, 2002, SHPO issued a letter providing | ||||||
14 | its refusal to issue a finding of NAE in regards to proposed | ||||||
15 | activities at Promontory Point for the Lake Michigan Shoreline | ||||||
16 | Protection, as recorded under IPHA log #109170043WCK; and
| ||||||
17 | WHEREAS, The Agreement and SHPO's June 21, 2002 letter | ||||||
18 | specify repair and rehabilitation to match the existing | ||||||
19 | step-stone limestone revetment and promenade and to minimize | ||||||
20 | impacts to the historic resources at Promontory Point under | ||||||
21 | the SOI standards; and
| ||||||
22 | WHEREAS, Discussions led by then-Senator Obama with the |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | USACE, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Park District (CPD), | ||||||
2 | SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), | ||||||
3 | and the consulting parties led to the 2006 Obama Scope of Work, | ||||||
4 | which provided an agreed-upon path forward for a preservation | ||||||
5 | approach and community engagement process to design planning | ||||||
6 | and construction at Promontory Point; and
| ||||||
7 | WHEREAS, Section 5072 of the WRDA of 2007 directed but | ||||||
8 | never funded a third-party, unbiased, independent preservation | ||||||
9 | feasibility and cost analysis study of Promontory Point to be | ||||||
10 | supervised by the Buffalo and Seattle offices of the USACE but | ||||||
11 | was not deemed an element of the Project; and
| ||||||
12 | WHEREAS, Other third-party, independent marine engineering | ||||||
13 | studies in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2024 all demonstrated that | ||||||
14 | Promontory Point remains functioning and operational for storm | ||||||
15 | damage and shoreline protection, and that a preservation | ||||||
16 | approach to repairing the step-stone limestone revetment and | ||||||
17 | promenade can meet erosion control and storm damage protection | ||||||
18 | requirements; and
| ||||||
19 | WHEREAS, Promontory Point was listed in the National | ||||||
20 | Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on January 19, 2018, and it | ||||||
21 | was designated a City of Chicago Landmark on April 19, 2023; | ||||||
22 | and
|
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | WHEREAS, The significant historic features of Promontory | ||||||
2 | Point are identified as the pavilion field house, including | ||||||
3 | its pathways, the meadow, and original plantings, four council | ||||||
4 | rings, the step-stone limestone revetment, the promenade, the | ||||||
5 | 55th Street underpass and its porticos, and the David Wallach | ||||||
6 | Fountain; and
| ||||||
7 | WHEREAS, There are multiple conditions for the several | ||||||
8 | elements of the structure of the revetment at Promontory | ||||||
9 | Point, including the immediate parkland, the step-stone | ||||||
10 | revetment, the promenade, the promenade sub-grade, and the | ||||||
11 | timber cribbing; and
| ||||||
12 | WHEREAS, The SOI standards provide for numerous treatments | ||||||
13 | and solutions to address the multiple conditions of the | ||||||
14 | limestone revetment and its structural elements at various | ||||||
15 | locations and sections of Promontory Point; and
| ||||||
16 | WHEREAS, Preserving the step-stone limestone revetment and | ||||||
17 | promenade preserves the multi-generational, racial, and | ||||||
18 | economic class community that has gathered at Promontory Point | ||||||
19 | for almost 100 years; therefore, be it
| ||||||
20 | RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE ONE HUNDRED THIRD GENERAL | ||||||
21 | ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we support the | ||||||
22 | legitimate Community Preservation Plan for Promontory Point, |
| |||||||
| |||||||
1 | Burnham Park, Chicago; and be it further
|