With the public benefits (required under the Zoning Ordinance) of the proposed 35 story project at 708 Church continue to evaporate, the retiring City Council continues to push the project forward through the process. Is this the Evanston we can be proud of?

The spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance has been ignored. The City Council is hiding behind a flawed Planned Development ordinance, allowing it to grant excessive zoning variations to a single developer that border on illegal spot zoning. The voice of the citizens of Evanston is being ignored to favor a private developer that brings an ever-shrinking list of “benefits” to exchange for huge personal financial gains.

What is Evanston giving the developers?

1. We are giving them the right to build to a height of approximately 405 feet (including mechanical screening) in a zone that allows for a maximum of 96 feet plus an additional 4 floors of parking.
2. We are giving them the right to provide only two loading berths, instead of the required five.
3. We are giving them the right to provide 128 FEWER parking spaces than are required by ordinance (this concession alone saves the developer nearly $4.5 million dollars)
4. We are now proposing to give the developers a five-year grace period (until December 31, 2013) before they need to apply for a building permit AND another 30 months after that date to complete the building. This extension is in direct contradiction to the very Planned Development ordinance that the Council is using to give-away your tax dollars to the developer.

What is the developer giving Evanston in return?

1. The developer is promising to strive for LEED silver certification. In the recently passed Downtown Plan, this would not even qualify as a benefit (only LEED Gold and Platinum would be eligible for bonuses).
2. The developer is promising a $1 million dollar contribution to Fountain Square. It should be noted that this contribution will not come to the city until the project is completed and an occupancy permit is issued, which could be mid-2016 or later.
3. The developer is promising a bit over 18,000 sq ft of “high end” retail space. This is less retail space than currently exists on the site.
4. The developer has promised some $20 million in additional TIF funds generated by the project. Calculated at $4 million per year for a fully occupied and assessed building, the project would need to be fully occupied and assessed by 2013 to reach this goal. Since the TIF expires at the end of 2018, it is unlikely that the project would even generate one year of TIF funds.
5. The developer has promised to pay the mandated contribution to affordable housing. This contribution will not be paid to the city until after the building is completed in 2016 or later.

What has the Council conveniently forgotten?

1. While the Plan Commission narrowly approved the development, they attached conditions. Among the conditions were at least one level of below ground parking and second floor office space. Both of these would increase the benefits of the project, and both were politely declined by the development team and removed from the ordinance.
2. There is an abundance of vacant storefronts in the subject property and surrounding buildings. By giving the developer an additional 5 years to get a building permit, it is highly unlikely that anyone will lease any of these properties (why would any successful business want to lease and improve a property that will be demolished in the near future).
3. As existing leased offices in the building gradually become vacant, the likelihood of new tenants is marginal. Clients of doctors, lawyers, therapists, dentists, and others who currently occupy the 708 office space will likely follow the professionals to their new locations, causing a further reduction in downtown business.

What should be done?

1. The 5-year extension to apply for a building permit should not be allowed to become part of the ordinance. There is no precedent for allowing a developer such an extension from the beginning. There is a precedent for the time allowed for actual construction, but NOT to obtain a building permit.
2. Should the 5-year extension be left in the ordinance, it constitutes a major variation to the submitted plan and must be sent back for review by appropriate City commissions or committees before being passed.
3. At a minimum, the City must request a comprehensive and independent financial analysis of the effect of the requested 5-year extension. This analysis should be paid for by the developer and done by a firm chosen by an independent committee similar to the blue-ribbon committee on the pension.

The development team is requesting extreme variations that give them millions of dollars in financial benefits while giving the City very little in return. The citizens of Evanston require that their elected officials represent THEIR interests and not the financial interests of a development team.

The 708 Church property should, and will, be developed. However, the current proposal is wrong for the property and wrong for Evanston. We urge you to continue to contact your elected officials and attend the March 23 City Council meeting where Citizen Comment will be heard.