Land Use Committee Meeting #9 – DRAFT Meeting Minutes

November 12, 2015 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. Lake County Central Permit Facility, 500 W. Winchester Road, Libertyville, IL Committee Members Present: Lake County Board Chairman Aaron Lawlor, Committee Co-Chair; George Ranney, Committee Co-Chair, Chris Stilling, representing Village of Buffalo Grove; Michael Ellis, representing Village of Grayslake; Trustee Stephen Park, representing Village of Gurnee; Mayor Linda Soto, representing Village of Hainesville; Mayor Joseph Mancino, representing Village of Hawthorn Woods; Michael Talbett, representing Village of Kildeer; Matthew Dabrowski, representing Village of Lakemoor; Heather Rowe, representing Village of Libertyville; David Lothspeich, representing Village of Long Grove; Trustee Dawn Abernathy, representing Village of Mundelein; Steve Shields, representing Village of Round Lake; Mayor Linda Lucassen, representing Village of Round Lake Park; Dave Brown, representing Village of Vernon Hills; President Steve Henley, representing Village of Volo; Russ Tomlin, representing City of Waukegan; Brad Leibov, representing Liberty Prairie Foundation; Mike Stevens, representing Lake County Partners; Mike Sands, representing Liberty Prairie Foundation (by telephone); and Stacy Meyers, representing Openlands (21 attendees)

Committee Members Not Present President Tom Poyton, representing Village of Lake Zurich; Mayor Frank Bart, representing Village of Wauconda; and Pat Carey, representing Lake County Board

Kristi DeLaurentiis (Metro Strategies) took roll call – see attendance list above.

1. Welcome and Introductions– Committee Co-Chair Aaron Lawlor

Co-Chair Lawlor brought the meeting to order.

Meeting minutes from the November 5, 2015 Land Use Committee were approved. Committee member Henley moved and committee member Ellis seconded.

Bob Dean, Deputy Executive Director for Local Planning at CMAP, stated that although the meeting notice for the November 5th meeting was properly posted, the agenda was not. Therefore, the committee was being reconvened in order to revote on the motion presented at that meeting. CMAP took responsibility for the oversight and apologized for the inconvenience. He noted that the public comments made at the November 5th meeting were still valid, as was the discussion of the committee.

After some discussion among the committee members about the status of the public comments made at the November 5th meeting, committee member Mancino moved to enter those public comments into the record. That motion was seconded by committee member Talbett and the motion was passed unanimously.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 2

2. Public Comment

The meeting was opened for public comment. The public was reminded that like last meeting there would be a three minute limit on comments. The public was also invited to submit any written comments for inclusion in the minutes.

• Bob Lueders, Lakemoor resident, and long-term resident of Lake County, said he owns a business in the area and sees traffic as a big problem. He supported the report and called on the committee to move forward with the roadway as critical infrastructure which will mitigate congestion and drive economic development while also being sensitive to environmental issues. His written comments are attached.

• Bill Baltutis, Executive Director of Transportation Management Association of Lake-Cook (TMA), noted that TMA is a not-for-profit business association working to improve employee commutes in Cook and Lake counties. He urged support for the 53/120 roadway to reduce congestion and add to economic vitality. Further, he sees the report as an incredible integration of land use and transportation planning in a way not done before in the US. He urged approval of the report.

• Peter Ponzio, Trustee of the Village of Hawthorne Woods, urged the committee to consider the tragic loss of wildlife throughout US history and urged it to oppose the roadway as an example of progress at any price. His written comments are attached.

• Kevin Gow, resident of Hawthorne Woods, stated that the BRAC report called for innovative and unique solutions, and that in his opinion, this report has neither. The roadway will add to congestion and increase already high taxes, and should be rejected. His written comments are attached.

• Martin Filson, resident of Lake Zurich, urged support for the roadway. He indicated he has been waiting for the Route 53 extension since he moved to the area 30 years ago and supports the report. He noted that the area has grown dramatically since he moved here and will continue to grow, with or without the roadway.

• Pete Olson, President of Lake County Building Trades, represents thousands of tradesmen, many in Lake County. He is also a lifelong resident of the County. He looks forward to the economic development the road construction will bring, and believes it will also reduce congestion for the residents.

• Rick Lesser, an attorney with a large law firm in Lake County, supports the roadway as a way to reduce congestion, bring 25,000-30,000 jobs, add to prosperity, and improve quality of life for residents.

• Michelle Wilson of Long Grove said she opposes the roadway because it will lead to too much development, reduce green space, harm the environment and community character and cost too much. Instead, the east-west roads should be enhanced.

• Yvonne Edwards of Hawthorne Woods indicated she is opposed to the road and is concerned about a resulting increase in school population. She also objected to meetings held during the work day, which prevents people from attending.

• Suzanne Zupec, resident of Wadsworth and President of the Lake County Transportation Alliance, said she supports the roadway both personally and on behalf of the Alliance. She noted that in her 45 years as a resident of the County she has seen area farmland destroyed by sprawl, but noted that banning new residents isn’t an option as she believes that growth will continue regardless of the road. She called for well-planned communities as envisioned in the report, and said the roadway is the right thing to do.

• Vanessa Griffin indicated her opposition to the roadway, saying that: it will encourage more driving and traffic; the without an IGA means there is no mechanism to ensure the environmental standards are

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 3

complied with; a No Build scenario should have been included in the study; and the road will create winners and losers. Her written comments are attached.

• Judy Gaca, resident of Grayslake, said the road will add to congestion and called for better mass transit, especially a loop connecting outer suburbs, instead.

• Keith Gray of Mettawa said he is both a Lake County resident and owner of a business that restores environmental areas. As such he sees both sides of the issue but believes the committee needs to approve the report and move the process forward.

• David Pfeifer of Waukegan said he is in support of the report, as a move toward smart growth. The road will help the area compete with Wisconsin, bring jobs and help residents get to work. His written comments are attached.

• Alan Wilson of Deerwood Estates in Long Grove said he opposes the roadway due to its impact on property values in his subdivision, on groundwater quality, and on taxes.

• Tim Cardwell, resident of unincorporated Mundelein, said the County desperately needs the road. The road has been talked about for years, and the idea of “don’t build it and they won’t come” has been proven false. He also publically thanked Lake County Forest Preserve for all the land they have bought, as he believes that is the only guaranteed way to preserve important land.

• Bill Pohlman, a Trustee of the village of Palatine, spoke personally as a 30-year resident. He has been in favor of the roadway for 53 years. Traffic is horrible and he has been hurt by the existing poor road system.

• Stephen Fuhrman of Buffalo Grove has been a resident for over 45 years and supports the roadway as a means of reducing traffic on Lake Cook Road and other east-west roads.

• Chuck Bartels, resident of Mundelein and County Board member, said he was a founder of Lake County Partners and the Lake County Transportation Alliance, and had served on the Lake County Forest Preserve District Board. He also owned a business in the County. He urged moving on to an EIS, saying it would be foolish not to obtain that information. He noted that if Co-Chair Ranney were not at the table, he would not feel as confident, as Mr. Ranney has been an outspoken advocate for the environment for many years. Mr. Bartels also pointed out that current residents are part of the reason for population growth and traffic congestion. Taxes are high because there is little development that supports the tax base. The solution lies in developing in a smart way that is respectful of the environment. He commended the committee for working together and urged approval of the report.

• Jeff Braiman of Buffalo Grove noted that he had served on the BRAC but was speaking personally in support of the report. He observed that development and growth have occurred in the area and that the road system has not kept up. He also noted broad public support of the roadway. He applauded the excellent work of the BRAC in balancing and respecting competing interests, and said that although the report is not perfect it can serve as a beacon for other communities in the country.

• Sid Mathias, 35 year resident of Buffalo Grove and member of the Lake County Board, said the BRAC was the third commission he had sat on that supported the Route 53 extension, and the roadway extension should have been done many years ago. He noted that the committee isn’t voting on whether to extend Route 53 but rather to approve the report and land use strategy, despite popular misconception. We need an EIS to answer many of the questions being posed, including an analysis of a No Build scenario. He urged the committee to vote to move forward with the report and for the Tollway to have an EIS prepared.

• Barbara Klipp said she represented the Sierra Club, with 6,000 members in Lake County. She urged the committee to vote no on the motion, saying that the roadway is a 1960 development plan that fails to recognize changing driving patterns and the additional congestion and “induced demand” that will result.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 4

She raised concerns about the enforceability of the environmental agreements, the cost of the EIS, and the funding gap for the roadway.

• Tim Perry, President of the Grayslake Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber supports the roadway extension because businesses need transportation access for customers and employees. The Chamber represents 240 small businesses and they need improvements to the transportation network. Population growth will continue to occur with or without the road. His written comments are attached.

• Chuck August, a 55-year resident of Wauconda thanked the committee for its time and effort and asked it to approve the report and move forward with the EIS.

• Collin McRae, a Lake County resident for 69 years urged approval of the report. He had publicly opposed the road at one time but due to improvements in the proposal, he now supports it. He urged the committee to do the right thing despite political criticism and approve the report.

• Michael Sarlitto, Trustee of the Village of Long Grove, read the resolution of the Village of Long Grove opposing the roadway which was read at the November 5th meeting. He also questioned the turnout behind the 75% approval for the roadway cited before. His written comments and the resolution are attached.

• Ed Sullivan of Mundelein spoke in opposition to the roadway. As a former board member of numerous local government bodies, he said he is familiar with area transportation issues, and urged ongoing incremental and affordable roadway improvements rather than the Route 53 extension.

• Marianne Bailey, a Lake Zurich Trustee, spoke in favor of the roadway and report and expressed gratitude for those who have served on commissions working on this issue for the last 20 years.

• Paul Davis of Mundelein opposed the roadway as it would come within 100 feet of his home and because the environmental protections are not ensured.

• Linda Wiens of Grayslake spoke in opposition of Route 53 extension, saying that it falls short of the BRAC recommendations. The report isn’t a plan or strategy, but a preamble, and without an IGA it is not binding.

• Rita O’Connor of Long Grove said this roadway is an old-style solution driven by politicians in Springfield as an economic development tool. We need an innovative transit solution such as a monorail or express lanes.

• Gary Englund of Hawthorn Woods said it was unfair that Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods were not originally invited to join the BRAC. He opposed the roadway an urged protection of open space.

• Susan Zingle of Wadsworth opposed route 53, stating that prior study by the Lake County Transportation Improvement Project showed that it would fail to improve traffic flow. Spend the $40 million cost of the EIS elsewhere.

• Peter Yastrow of Highland Park urged the committee to consider that coming innovations such as driverless cars will reduce congestion, and opposed ruining open space for more roadway.

• Kelly Corrigan, a Hawthorn Woods Trustee, spoke as a private resident. She opposed Route 53 extension, noting that the environmental agencies have voted No, that Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods would have the greatest impact but smallest benefit, and that the cost of both the EIS and the roadway would be too high.

• Aleksandra Davis of Mundelein opposed the roadway. Although her commute to O’Hare is congested, the roadway extension will be 50 feet from her property, will raise taxes too much, and will become congested again.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 5

Co-Chairman Lawlor asked if any other members of the public would like to speak.

• Bob Gillengerten of Antioch said it is time we finished Route 53 as planned, saying that it will benefit residents by reducing traffic.

Co-Chairman Lawlor asked again if any other members of the public would like to speak.

• Susan Triphahn, Round Lake Trustee, spoke as a private resident, saying that although the plan isn’t perfect, congestion must be addressed and we need to move forward with EIS. She said she supports the report.

Co-Chairman Lawlor asked if any other members of the public would like to speak and seeing none, closed public comment.

(Mr. Dabrowski, representative of the Village of Lakemoor, left the meeting. His written comment is attached.)

3. Consideration of Motion to Finalize and Accept the Illinois Route 53/120 Corridor Land Use Strategy – Committee Co-Chair Aaron Lawlor

Committee member Henley moved to approve the attached Motion to Finalize and Accept the Illinois Route 53/120 Corridor Land Use Strategy. Committee member Park seconded.

Stacy Meyers, staff attorney for Openlands, read the attached statement, describing the participation of Openlands in this process and its appreciation of the significant gains of the data and insight gathered, but concluding that it cannot support the report. The report fails to provide a clear cooperative implement strategy that protects natural resources and open space. Further Openlands cannot support launching an EIS because it sees no assurance that IDOT will propose a road alternative that will protect sensitive environmental resources. The full written statement of Openlands is attached.

One Committee member questioned how the boundaries of the Corridor were established. Daniel Grove responded that the committee reviewed proposed boundaries at its May meeting and approved them at its July meeting.

Responding to a question by a committee member, Co-Chair George Ranney noted that he encouraged environmental groups to vote as they thought was right. Co-Chair Ranney, however, has confidence there can be progress made on environmental issues by the November 1, 2016 deadline included in the draft motion.

There was discussion about the meaning of the words “with edits” in paragraph 6 of the draft motion. Daniel Grove responded that it was intended to reflect the edits received from public comments and reflected in the memorandum dated November 4th. It was suggested that paragraph 6 of the draft motion be amended to read as follows: “Agrees to accept the Route 53/120 Land Use Strategy report and the Summary of Comments and Revised Responses memorandum of November 4, 2015 and to submit the report for each municipality’s consideration”. Consent to this modification of the present motion was granted by committee members Henley and Park.

Committee member Mancino stated that public comment reflected a lack of public consensus for the extension and stated that the composition of the original BRAC was unfair because it excluded two municipalities most affected.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 6

Committee member Henley moved to call the question. Co-Chair Lawlor ruled the motion out of order because the speaking member may not be interrupted. Committee member Mancino continued the composition of the BRAC undermines any claim of consensus and that he would not be supporting the motion.

Committee member Henley again moved to call the question, and Committee member Abernathy seconded. Co-Chair Lawlor noted that a motion to call the question requires a 2/3 vote. A roll call vote was held on the motion to call the question and passed with 14 ayes and 6 nays, as follows:

Ayes - 14: Abernathy (Mundelein), Park (Gurnee), Rowe (Libertyville), Soto (Hainesville), Lucassen (Round Lake Park), Shields (Round Lake), Ellis (Grayslake), Stilling (Buffalo Grove), Tomlin (Waukegan), Stevens (Lake County Partners), Henley (Volo), Brown (Vernon Hills), Co-Chair Lawlor, Co-Chair Ranney

Nays – 6: Talbett (Kildeer), Mancino (Hawthorn Woods), Lothspeich (Long Grove), Sands (Liberty Prairie Foundation), Leibov (Liberty Prairie Foundation), Meyers (Openlands)

Co-Chair Lawlor asked for a vote on the underlying motion, to approve the Motion to Finalize and Accept the Illinois Route 53/120 Corridor Land Use Strategy, revised to reflect the following language in paragraph 6: “Agrees to accept the Route 53/120 Land Use Strategy report and the Summary of Comments and Revised Responses memorandum of November 4, 2015 and to submit the report for each municipality’s consideration”.

The roll was called and the vote passed with 15 ayes and 5 nays, as follows:

Ayes - 15: Talbett (Kildeer), Abernathy (Mundelein), Park (Gurnee), Rowe (Libertyville), Soto (Hainesville), Lucassen (Round Lake Park), Shields (Round Lake) , Ellis (Grayslake), Stilling (Buffalo Grove), Tomlin (Waukegan), Stevens (Lake County Partners), Henley (Volo), Brown (Vernon Hills), Co-Chair Lawlor, Co-Chair Ranney

Nays - 5: Mancino (Hawthorn Woods), Lothspeich (Long Grove), Sands (Liberty Prairie Foundation), Leibov (Liberty Prairie Foundation), Meyers (Openlands)

Motion to adjourn by Committee member Park, seconded by Committee member Abernathy, approved by unanimous consent, meeting adjourned.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 7

Attachment 1 Written Public Comments Submitted to the Committee

1"1.-LL-L5

To: CMAP Land Use Committee Meeting

From: Bill Morris, Grayslake, lllinois

I would urge you to reject requesting any further lfunds be spent

to study the planned extension of Rt. 53 from Lake Cook Road toRt. L20 in Grayslake, lllinois. The proposed highway should not be

built for several reasons.

l-. There is not a workable plan of financing. Even the plan put

forward by the Lake County Board Cl'lair is short ov€r,Sf-billionwhich means that even the Tollway cannot build the extension fora minimum of L0 years and likely much longer since the Tollway is

funding its current 15-year capital plan with billions of dollars indebt which will not be paid off until until 2040 or later. lt is a

complete waste of public money to spend even one dime tofurther study this project which cannot be funded. Spending 5.7-

rnillion now and a total of S40-milllon on studies over the next fiveyears is an insult to toll and taxpay'ers in lllinois.

2. lf built as planned Rt. 53 will damage some rare wetlands in

Lake County. Any intrusion into throse wetlands is a violation ofour obligation to the flora and fauna we all claim to want topnotect.

3. The proposed Rt. 53 plan will result in the most expensive per

mile expressway in lllinois history, 4 to 5 times more than any

other, at a time that the State of lllinois cannot meet its day-to-day filnancial obligations. The fact that this is even being

considered is an insult to the taxpilyers and toll payers in the State

of lllinois.

4. The congestion problems the proposed Rt. 53 is alileged tocorrect will not be corrected by the construction of tfiris 12.5-mile

expressway. In fact due to the proposed constructioh east=w€St

traffic movement in south Lake County will be even greater.

5. Rt. 53 is a 1950's solution to a 2015 traffic problem and does

not reflect the direction transportation is taking and will take over

the next 50-years. lt will be outdated before construlction is

completed.

6. The proposed 45 mile per hour speed limit will not be enforced

thus creating great environmental damage. The Tollway does not

seem to enforce its speed limits now.

7. Upgrading Rt. 83, Rt. 45, and Arlington Heights Road will solve

the lion's share of the north-south congestion problems costing

billions less.

Please end this folly now once and for all and recommend against

this Tollway study.

Bill MorrisFormer Member of the lllinois Tollway Board

Public Comments by Vonessa Griffin, resident af Howthorn Woods

11/12/2015 Land Use Committee Meeting, Libefiville lL

Thank you for the opportunity to address you once ogain todoy.

That Open Meetings laws were not followed to the letter for such a higtl-p e,

believe thot your committee would never respect the input of constiluents who core

enough about our public planning processes to take time work, book childcare,prepare rema and ottend ond even speak at public meetings.

With that said, I thank you once ogain for inviting public input on this p,lon.

It's foirly apporent that as o committee, you are all reody to let this dogument stond as

representing your shored vision for the future of Lake County and your'gupport forcontinuing to spend tdxpoyer money exploring this highwoy. Here are r,ny comments andquestions for you as you prepare to do thot today.

1. The polished ond beau I odvococy communication promoting the 53/L20 extension

ordinory people just trying to get to work. ln fact, we oll heard m a qouple of citizenslast week who spoke to your committee obout traffic bockups affecting their work andpersonal lives, ond their need to "just get home to their families."

But if you think you're helping those ordinary citizens by advocating this plan with youryes vote, you don't hove allthe information you need. Take it frorn Wired Magozine:"Building bigger roods octually makes traffic worse!"* And there's mor'e where thotcame m. Google is your friend.

this one ond guarantee the promised wetlond mitigotion or open spoce preservation

when there is simply no mechonism to ensure thot the promises are kept? The

Environmentol stewa on your committee are to be opplauded for recognizing thatand voting accordingly last week.

3. ln the midst of talk about lGAs and newly invented layers of local government withclever new nomes, it's not cleor who exactly would hold the pursestrings of the

Environmentol Stewordship Fund. I implore you, Democrats ond Republicons alike, toconsider very ca lly ond critically ANY plan that invents ond depends upon new layers

of bureaucrocy os this one does.

law will require thot a "No Build" scenario be lored and considered in the event thoton EIS process is initiated, once ogain. Wouldn't it have been wise to have included some

explorotion of this required and legitimote option?

ln closing, This Land IJse Plan is a complicated ond speculative development scheme thot

. Building a giont, ensive new tollway through the heart of ou,r communities

not to mention the quiet semi-rurol chsracter of our communitips.. It crestes winners ond losers in our county.o lt is o plan thot runs counter to current research and tronsit exp,ertise.. AND lt is NOT supported by public consensus.

It's time to leave this tired ideo behind ond plan with e vision and wi,sdom, not just forourselves, but for the oges.

Thank you agoin for your time.

REFERENCES & PERTINENT ARTICLES. "Whot's up with that: Building Bigger Roods Actually Mokes f,mlfic Worse," by

Adam Mann, Wired Magazine, June L7, 20L4. Accessed aton November

L2,2015.. "The Clearest Explanotion Yet for Why M nnials Are Driving,Less," by Eric

Jaffe, The Atlantic Citylab, July 20L5. Accessed at

on November t2,2015.. "The World's First Solor Rood Is Producing More Energy Than Expected," by

Katie Valentine, Thinkprogress.org on May tL,2Ot5. Accessed at

energy/ on November L2,2Ot5.. "The Future of Transportotion is not oll flying cors," by Eric Jaffe, The Atlantic

Citylab, October t0,2OL4. Accessed at

al l-flvine-ca rs/38 L333/ o n Nove m b erlLZ, 2OL5.

Good Afternoon . y name is Bob Lueders. During the last 2$ years,I have been a

resident of Deer Park, Hawthom Woods, and Lakemoor. I ourrently own a small

business in McHenry called Radicom, but in the past I've also commuted to ElkGrove and Rosemont. As you can tell, I drive through the county every day and

traffic has become increasingly unbearuble, particularly Routgs 12,45, and 83. To

that end, I am here today to voice strong support for the propgsed Illinois Route 53

Extension and the Illinois Route 120 Bypass.

Though this congestion alleviating and economy stimulating project has been

considered for many years, this time it is finally poised to move forward. The BlueRibbon Advisory Council, made up of elected leaders, business leaders, and

environmental stewards, and the Land Use Committee have worked diligently todevelop and advance k"y recommendations in all areas. I thank you forvolunteering your time in this important endeavor.

As you know, The Illinois Tollway, the Chicago etropolitan Agency for Planning

and Lake County have partnered to examine the feasibility of the project withrespect to financing and land use. A package of financial recommendations,

including innovative and sustainable revenue opportunities has been completed and

now you are set to vote on the land use recommendations. I urge you to vote yes!

On the very important issue of environmental sustainability, the proposed plan

integrates land use, transportation, economic development, and open space. Itrecommends an open space system that includes the protection and restoration ofconservation lands and enhanced open space protection strategies to reconnect

fragmented ecosystems, as well as innovative stormwater management techniques

to minimize impacts. Further, the proposed Environmental Restoration and

Stewardship Fund would provide the financial support for the protection and

enhancement of our natural resources, including agricultural lands and water

bodies within two miles of the roadway. The fund will also support efforts toprotect and restorc at least 750 acres of land, and remediate ecological health

issues that may arise within the cor:ridor.

It is time for us to move forward with this critical infrastructure project that willmitigate congestion and drive renewed economic opportunity for Lake County and

the region while at the same time honoring our commitment to environmental

stewardship. I hope you will join me in supporting the Illinois 53 Extension and

Route 120 Bypass.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Peter Ponzio, and lam a Trustee of the Village of Hawthorn Woods.

As aspirational documents, the BRAC report, Feasibility Analysis and the Land Use Strategy documents

are, individually, and in total, commendable, However, as detailed planning documents, they are

somewhat flawed.

To begin, all three documents assert that the 2009 non-binding referendum showed broad support forthe Route 531I20 extension. The documents state Ihat75% of the voters approved of this project, with63,645 registered voters voting for the project. However this represents only 15.6% of the 408,799

registered voters in Lake County in 2009, hardly a manclate for change.

Next, the BRAC report, in its guiding principles section, point number two, indicated that it would "seek

innovative design solutions for a safe, integrated, multi-modal corridor that preserves the environmentand the character of nearby communities, and enhances their economic vitality." The same report, in

item number three stated that the county should: "anerlyze potential funding options and pursue

corridor concepts to the extent that they are financially viable, fiscally sustainable and equitable."

The Guiding principles of the BRAC report were adopterC by both the Feasibility Analysis and the Land

Use Strategy documents, and resulted in the formation of four corridor areas, which are outlined in the

Land Use Strategy Documents. Further, the Feasibility Analysis suggested that the "STF fund wouldgenerate revenues based on 25 percent of the increased revenue from the growth in property values ofnew, non-residentialproperties within a one mile radius of the corridor and a two'mile radius at

interchanges to the lllinois Route 53/1.2O project."

This STF (or Sustainable Transportation Fund) fund places an undue burden on five of the communities

adjoining the corridor plan, including Hawthorn Woods, in which virtually all land currently identified by

the village for commercial development would be subject to this STF. In the Land Use Strategy

documents before us today, the South Corridor, where Hawthorn Woods is located, is expected to

comprise 13.4I% of the total commercial growth forecast for the period up to 2040, yet is expected tocontribute 25% of its commercial development funds based on receiving the lcenefit of !3% of the

commercial growth. This hardly seems equitable.

There are a number of other areas in the documents which need to be reconsidered, such as: the

stormwater mitigation issues, the effects of elevated causeways on residents, flora and fauna, the lack

of funding for East/West arterial roads, not to mention the projected shortfall of from 5800 million to 51

billion for this project, which might be considered as not being financially viable nor sustainable.

Finally, there are a number of areas that were not considered in the project because they were

identified as being out of the scope of the project, inclr,rding: noise and air pollution, utilities, school

district planning, as well as the effects of runoff on potiable water in the county.

In conclusion, the work done by the various committees is to be commended, but more needs to be

done to address the issues raised by the municipalities and residents on several key points as a result ofthe planning documents prepared by the committees.

Good Evening,

I am adamantly opposed to the extension of Route 53 for the folfowing reasons:Cost:

The estimated cost will certainly double -building on wetljands is notcheap.

lllinois is broke and we need to take care of the roads wQ already have.Raising gas taxes and tolls will not be enough to cover cQsts.

Environment:Destruction of habitats and wetlands.More roads = firore pollution and rnore congestionMoney would be better spent on mass transit

Reasonableness:Major corporations, such as Motorola and Kraft, as well qs people, are

moving downtown.It will be too expensive for most people to use everyday.The real problem for those of us in western Lake County is congestion

on east-west roads.It would be cheaper and less disrurptive to widen roads or extend Rte.83.

Thank You,Sharon Becker

CMAP lllinois

Committee members,

Route 531120 Corridor Lond Use Committee Review Meeting Nov, 201 5

You hove done o good job of moking lemon juice resemlcle lemonode. lt is unfortunote thot your ossignmentond this whole project hove been to moke Rt 53 oppeor os polotoble. The Lond Upe study should hovecovered oll of Loke County before Rt 53, ond then we could determine the best oCtion to toke. This wosnothing more thon o self justifying exercise for the 53 extension ond o litony of recqmmendotions with no teethor funding sources.

Let s put this neorly $3 billion expense in perspective. lDOl''s budget for highwoy improvements projects for thesix yeors, 2016-2021, is $8.3 billion for ihe whole stole. During thot time, IDOT must mointoin olmost I 6,000 miles ofhighwoys ond 7./00 bridges. So, in comporison, is this one 25 mile rood reolly worth $3 billion?

And whot ore we getting for this $3 billion? There ore two forces pushing for this project. Buffolo Grove hos beentrying to get its troffic congestion ollevioted for decodes. And for o short while, if tl'te rood were built, BuffoloGrove would see some of its troffic mitigoted. But not for long. With the development thot is proposed, trofficwill increose dromoticolly ond Buffolo Grove's congestion will return. And the congestion willworsen for ollcommunities, since there will be no funds for improving the eost-west orteriol roodq, which is where theboltlenecks hove olwoys occurred.

lf you reod the report corefully, the reol ogendo behind this rood becomes cleor. i'Accommodote theeconomic development needs ond ospirotions of communities ond lqndowners." llhe report ocknowledgesthot development will occur without Rt 53, but spending the $3 billion "would fundgmentolly improve thecompetitive position of the corridor." You hove to osk "For Whom?"

One of the stoted gools is to moximize commerciol development ond municipol tox revenue. However, port ofthe proposed finoncing plon siphons off 25% of the comnrerciol tox increose to poy the tollwoy. lt won't go tothe schools or for odditionol infrostructure needed. Do we wont to spend $3 billion,dollors to subsidize thedreoms of some politicolly connected developers so ihey con reop millions more thon they olreody would,while putting more demonds on the municipolities?

Who benefits? Certoinly not Howthorn Woods. Long Grove, or Kildeer. This offers them nothing except trucktroffic plowing through their communities, pollution, ond woter issues. lt will help people get through Mundelein.They will not be stopping to shop or work or eot. They will be going to the shiny new development in Groysloke.The report points out there will be retoil leokoge in northwestern ond southern sections of the corridor. Similorly,Mundelein will be connibolized.

The BRAC summory stoted thct 50% of lond outside the corridor wos open spoce, formlond, or wetlonds. This

rood will promote sprowl, ond non-sustoinoble growth in the corridor's northwestern communiiies. How will theypoy for their growing needs?

IDOT con't offord to build this rood or even mointoin current infrostructure. The tollwoy con't offord to build this

rood on its own. Municipolities con'i offord the rcmificotions of this rocd. Homeowners ond toxpoyers con'tofford this rood.

Putthis Odyssey to bed. Adopt mony of the recommendotions of the Lond Use Study, bui do not move forwordwith the Rt 53 project.

Mory Mothews

Good afternoon distinguished members of the Lakre County Board and concerned citizens of

Lake County. My name is David Pfeifer and I live in Waukegan. I come before you this afternoon

to speak in support of the proposed Rt.53 extension,

lhave lived in Lake Countyfor most of the past 20years, and frequently have had to drive

through this corridor to work, or visit family and aclult children who live in DuPage and Kane

County. Let me tell you, there are times I would rallher have a root canirl. l'm certain there is no

one here who would say the congestion in this cornidor is acceptable. Arnd it's only going to

continue to get worse. Studies show that Lake County will continue to grow significantly over

the nextseveral decades, with some estimates predicting a30% increase in population by 2040.

Slow moving parking lot comes to mind.

For those of you in crowd today with environmental concerns, I appreciate those concerns. A

few years back I had the opportunity to work in Oregon for a year on contract. Being immersed

in the beautyof the mountains, forests, and natural beautygave me a whole new perspective

on the environment. But what I saw in Oregon, and what I see proposed by this board is "smart

growth", In Oregon I saw collaboration between large employers like Intel, environmentally

concerned citizens, and the various governmental agencies. The whole community understood

the need to be economically vibrant yet environmentally conscious. I have full confidence of

this board to be equally good stewards of our environmqnt and our financial well-beirrg.

In case you don't know, lllinois has a little bit of a Lrudget problem. And if you take a drive just

north of here into southern Wisconsin, business is booming. And much of this boom has come

at the expense of lllinois. Wisconsin has the infrastructure to support this economic growth,

and we must do the same. The economic impact rersulting from this construction could add up

to S20 billion to the local economy, and add upward of 30,000 jobs. This would help diversify

the tax base and reduce the burden on property taxpayers.

And one final note on jobs before I close. Unfortunately I lost my job a couple months ago, so

l'm in search mode right now. I see numerous opportunities in the Schaumburg area that l'm

hesitant to pursue. Why? I have to make a quality rcf life decision. A drive in excess of 90

minutes each way is not a pleasant choice. This extension could easily decrease the drive by 30

minutes, bringing more opportunities into reach.

Although completion of this extension will not be of immediate benefit in my current job

search, we have to consider the future for our children and our young families. Without a

vibrant job market, families will continue to look at southern Wisconsin or other states as I am

now doing. This migration will only continue to erode the economic stability of our county and

of our state, I strongly urge this board to approve this proposal. Thank you.

Tim Perry, President of the Grayslake Area Chamber of Commerce.

The GL Chamber supports the Route 53 extension as described in the BRAC process because allbusiness, especially small local businesses, must be able to have their empl$yees, suppliers,customers, be able to access their business from outside of our community. Access to customers,and in the reverse, customers' access to our local businesses, is the key to the survival andgrowlh of small businesses.

This Route 531120 extension as described is not a benefit only to the major industrial players inLake County such as the Abbotts, the Baxters, etc. This is about the small, focal business with 2,5, 10, or 20 employees. Those businesses whose owners are too consumed with making a livingand meeting payroll tomorrow that they cannot sho'ar up to meetings like this to make comments.

They must be able tq al!ac!_c_qglo4_e_r1ftgr-n-a lerye{atgq oljtrqy__qqmalruryryq_T_eCbgnb_9rof Commerce understands this and this is the reason I am here today speakipg out.

While the 531120 extension is a "Lake County'positive impact on the transportation corridors tcounty areas. This is apart of the regional transCounty boundaries are political boundaries, not

This is a well-designed and efficient transportation infrastructure expansion project that is key tothe economic wellbeing of businesses in Central Lake County and to their continued growth

This 53/120 extension is another link in the Northeastern Illinois transportation system that mustaccommodate expected economic and population growth now and in the future. In the last 20years, Lake County's population has increased by 200,000 and the number of housing units hasincreased by 80,000. And another 200,000 residents are projected in the next 25 years, whetheror not this road is built. So the argument that building this road will only lead to uncontrolledpopulation booms is moot. The boom happened without it. The congestion is choking outbusiness growth and new business development.

There is, and has been, widespread consensus among elected officials, civic organizations,business leaders, school districts, and transportation planners for many years that this project isthe most intelligent and effective alternative being offered that will reduce travel times andenhance the quality of life for small businesses and residents.

So, on behalf of 240 small businesses that comprise the Grayslake Chamber of Commerce, wethank this committee for its good work, and we appreciate your vote supporting the furtheranceofthis project.

Iter-,r tr * G--ox, Hnl<Aon^/ u" Jc d l--'

4trae/r*/r)"^)GOOD IVIORNTNG, MY NAME IS KEVIN GOW AND I'M A30 YEAR RESIDENT OF HW.

THE BRAC REPORT STATES THE NEED FOR "A UNIQUEPARKWAY DESIGN "

AND PAGE B OF THE LAND USE DRAFT MENTIONS,

..THE REQUIREMENT FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD DESIGNSOLUTIONS. "

LET ME SUMMARIZE CMAP'S AND THE LCB'S "UNIQUEAND INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS .. TO DATE;

USING A 60 YEAR OLD CORRIDOR PLAN, YOU AREPROPOSING TO BUILD A25 MILE FOUR LANEHIGHWAY THROUGH SOME OF THE MOST PRISTINEWETLANDS IN THE STATE, AT A COST OF NEARTY $3BrLrroN oR $rz0 MTLLION/MILE, FUNDED'BV A4CENT/GAL GAS TAX IN LAKE COUNTY, INCREASEDTOLLS THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM AND A VALUECAPTURE TAX THAT WOUTD SIPHON 2 5o/o OF NEWCOMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES FROM LOCALMUNICIPALITIES AND GIVE IT TO THE TOTLWAYAUTHORITY IN PERPETUITY. TAX, TAX, TAX ANDYOU'RE STILL SHORT $1.5 BILLION!

YOUR PLAN IS NOT INNOVATIVE, IT'S ARCHAIC!

HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT TO SAY YOU HAVEN'T TRIEDTO BE INNOVATIVE IN OTHER AREAS SUCH AS;

1) LABELING WHAT IS REALLY A "DEVELOPMENTPLAN" AS A'TRAFFIC SOLUTION" PLAN, WHEN INMANY WAYS THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

2) AND MISLEADING THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTOTHINKING THAT A 45 MPH 4 LANE PARKWAYWILL ELIMINATE THEOUR EAST/WEST ARTIN ALL PROBABILITY I

WORSE.

3J YOU'VE BEEN INNOVAUNDERESTIMATING TOF THIS PROIECT BUTWHEN IT COMES TO FIS THE SAME OLD TAXAPPROACH, AND THIS IN THE HIGHEST TAXEDCOUNTY IN THE STAT

4J DID YOU KNOW LAKETTTH HIGHEST TAXEDOF 3 077 COUNTIES?PERCENT! LAKE COUNA LOT LIKE COOK COU

CONCERN TO ME ANDREPUBLICANS

5) AND, FINALLY, YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO BEINNOVATIVE WITH WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THISPROIECT, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? WHOSHOULD CITIZENS VENT THEIR ANGER AT WHENTHEY FINALLY REALIZE WHAT A BOONDOGGLEIT IS?

THE LCB IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PROIECT MOVINGFORWARD, OR NOT. AND YOU HAVE TO DECIDE ASELECTED OFFICIALS, GOING INTO A NATIONALELECTION YEAR" HOW MUCH POLITICAL CAPITAL YOUWANT TO GAMBLE ON BACKING IT,

THANK YOU.

11/L2/ 15 CMAP MEETTNG

Route 53 Public Meeting ll-12-I5Public Comment Linda Wiens. resident of Grayslake

Good afternoon. My name is Linda Wiens; I am a resident of Grayslake.

I was present at last week's meeting ^1iT1t{nusly.

I have read the Land Use

Strategy Report, Executive Summary and Motion.

Many of the public comments and some committee member statements last weekpointed outo that the proposed highway extension is not a good basis f,or a sound land use

and economic development plan;. that the highway is not the best way for building a modem public transportation

and transit svstem:. thTrffi|i-ponant natural features of our area willbe seriously impacted; and

r that the environmentally concerned citizen groups have not been suffrcientlyincluded in the process.

Most of all, the current work and recommendations fall seriously short of meetingthe BRAC recommendations which were confirmed by the relevant authorities.

Many citizens in the region have feared that over time, as plirnning proceeds, the

BRAC recommendations will be increasingly degraded, if not totally ignored and

forgotten. At this first step I believe that is already happening.

,,i ,t2Lte ,U'd-n [&?.//LrotAt ;a ltL 5'hq,l"-./,g, !t7tz'-pf',

First, the Report is neither a plan nor a strategy. It is a mostly a preamble: a generic

description of what is involved in land use planning. Even the "Best Practices"

And "Guiding Principles" secti seful guide toward planning' eartdk' t'* '/c'nt'7'''&'czbcLza

5"a-' a":4d'"u /"'z{74'J62'y'n"

Second, the document includes a series of "Opportunities" with descriptions invery general terms of what "could" be done. Eventually, only two actions are

proposed in the "Call to Action:"o Municipalities are encouraged to adopt the Corridor Land Use Strategy as a

guidance document.o Municipalities are also encouraged to work towards developing and entering

into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) or other similar agreement to assist

with achieving Corridor goals.Encouragement is great, but it is not aplan.

Third, the report states that three goals were considered (not actually set). But(quote) "the three key land use goals for the Corridor cannot all be achieved withthe available land. Only two of the three goals can be planned for, while the third isup in the air." Since no actions are proposed for the two goals either, it seems thateverything is up in the air.

Fourth, the Report states repeatedly that aLand Use Plan should be establishedregardless of whether the Route 53 extension is built. Agreed. But then, page 50gives an obvious "plug" for the highway extension. There it states categorically(verbatim) "When developed, the IL 531120 facility will fundamentally improvethe competitive position of the Corridor."

The statements which follow are similarly assertive: "This boost in developmentpotential will be generated by decreasing travel times within the County,enhancing access to Interstate 94 and Lake-Cook Road, creating new highwayinterohanges with high visibility to passing traffic, and improving connectivity toemployment centers in Schaumburg, O'Hare International Airport and downtownChicago."

Pages 45 - 50 not only assume but in effect propose that the Highway Extension bebuilt. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is disingenuous.

Finally, the BRAC recommendations are included and the Report states that"The BRAC established a foundation of consensus and guidelines by whichsubsequent efforts should proceed." But there are very few fuither references tothese recofirmendations in the Report, and none in the proposed motion.

All this confirms the concerns of many that the intended process of ensuring that. IF this Highway is to be built it must meet the highest standards of innovative

planning and environmental protectionis already sliding toward

o SINCE this Highway will be built let's do what we can to mitigate its negativeeffects'

nq,xrwf"b€ili€rreThis report 1a easy to vote for since it doesn't bind anyone to anything.It's unfortunate that a whole year's work is to end here, with no actual landdevelopment strategy.

Thank you.

CMAP - Land Use Committee Meeting (Rte. 53 Extension)Public Comments: Michael Sarlitto, Trustee, Village of Long Grove

tust20ts

++++++++#+++++++##+#+++++++++++++++#+++++++++++++++++++++++++Hello, my name is Michael Sarlitto, Trustee for the Village of Long GrovePlease excuse my reading of the following points as I don't believe I could articulate better, whathas been reduced to writing here...

WHEREAS, The Village of Long Grove recognizes the compelling need for polutions that address

traffic congestion throughout Lake County and strongly supports solving existlng severe congestionproblems on arterial roadways through repair, modemization, reconstruction, and widening whichwould offer effective congestion relief at a much lower cost than constructing tlie extension; and

WHBREAS, there are limited funds available for road construction, maintenanpe and repair; and

WHEREAS, extending FAP 342 (lllinois Route 53 Extension) will increase traffic on the existingarteria| roads and intersections throughout Lake County that have been identified as being greatlycongested and in need of expansiorVimprovements without the additional traffig generated by IllinoisRoute 53; and

WIIBREAS, the Illinois Route 53 Extension would attract unwanted and unnecessary suburbansprawl, remove jobs from central urban areas, add to an already accelerating rate of developmentthroughout Lake County promoting new suburban type development along this new corridor and

self-defeating the avowed purpose for the extension in the first place, traffic control and ameliorationof the existing heavy traffic problems in Lake County; and

WIIEREAS, the proposed Illinois Route 53 Extension would traverse and irretrievably damage a

number of environmentally sensitive areas; and

WHEREAS, the Village of Long Grove opposes the northern extension of Illinois Route 53 throughLake County due to its limited access, negative environmental consequences, damage to the ruralcharacter of communities within its path, and the acceleration of improper development and suburban

sprawl that the proposed alternative would bring to Lake County; and

WHEREAS, consistent, compliant and compatible to the Village of Long Grove Comprehensive

Plan opposing the extension of Illinois Route 53 through Lake County; and

WIIEREAS, as recently validated by the results of the 2015 Village Residents Opinion Survey; and

WHEREAS, the Village of Long Grove challenges the State of Illinois and the County of Lake toput forth new alternatives reflecting immediately attainable and viable solutions to the trafficcongestion adversely impacting the quality of life.. "of Lake County residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED...

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Village of Long Grove hereby STRENUOUSLY OBJECTSto the currently designated extension of Illinois Route 53 north of Lake Cook Road. The Village ofLong GroveLong Grove submits that the Illinois Department of Transportation should give great consideration tothis resolution since Long Grove would be one of the communities most directly and adversely

affected by this extension.

This resolution passed by a near unanimous vote a week ago Tuesday...CONCENSUS? I think not!

REF: Vilfage ofLong Grove Resolution Opposing IL Route 53 Extension, Passed10/2712015 by a vote of5-1

CMAP lllinois Route 531120 Corridor Lond Use

Committee members,

Committee Review tvteptinO Nov, 2015

You hove done o good job of moking lemon juice resemble lemonode. lt is urrfortqnote thot your ossignmentond this whole project hove been to moke Rt 53 oppeor,rs polotoble. The Lond Use study should hovecovered oll of Loke County before Rt 53, ond then we could determine the best oction to toke. This wosnothing more thon o self justifying exercise for the 53 exiension ond o litony of recommendotions wiih no teethor funding sources.

Let's put this neorly $3 billion expense in perspective. IDOT's budget for rojects for thesix yeors, 2016-2021, is $8.3 billion for the whole stoie. During thot time, I t ,l6,000

miles ofhighwoys ond 7,700 bridges. So. in comporison, is this one 25 mile rood

And whot ore we getting for this $3 billion? There ore two forces pushing for this project. Buffolo Grove hos beenirying io get its troffic congestion ollevioted for decodes. And for o short while, if the rood were built, BuffoloGrove would see some of its troffic mitigoted. But nol for long. With the development thot is proposed, trofficwill increose dromoticolly ond Buffolo Grove's congestion will return. And the congestion willworsen for ollcommunities, since there will be no funds for improving the eost-west orteriol roods, which is where thebottlenecks hove olwoys occurred.

lf you reod the report corefully. the reol ogendo behind this rood becomes cleor.'iAccommodoie theeconomic development needs ond ospirolions of commurnities ond londowners." fhe report ocknowledgesthot development will occur without Rt 53. but spending the $3 billion "would fundomentolly improve thecompetitive position of the corridor." You hove to osk "For Whom?"

One of the stoted gools is to moximize commerciol development ond municipoltox revenue. However, port ofihe proposed finoncing plon siphons off 25% of the commerciol tox increose to poy the tollwoy. lt won't go iothe schools or for odditionol infrostructure needed. Do wer wont to spend $3 billion dollors to subsidize thedreoms of some politicolly connected developers so they con reop millions more thon they olreody would,while putting more demonds on the municipolities?

Who benefits? Cerioinly not Howthorn Woods, Long Grove, or Kildeer. This offers them nothing excepi trucktroffic plowing through iheir communiiies, pollution, ond woter issues. lt will help people get throuqh Mundelein.They will not be stopping io shop or work or eot. They will be going to ihe shiny new development in Groysloke.The report points out there will be retoil leokoge in northwestern ond southern sections of the corridor. Similorly,Mundelein will be connibolized.

The BRAC summory stoted thot 50% of lond outside the corridor wos open spoce. formlond, or wetlonds. Thls

rood will promote sprowl, ond non-sustoinoble growth in the corridor's northweslern communities. How willtheypoy for their growing needs?

IDOT con't offord to build this rood or even mointoin current infrostructure. The tollwoy con't offord to build thisrood on its own. Municipolities con't offord the romificotions of this rood. Homeowners ond toxpoyers con'tofford this rood.

Put ihis Odyssey to bed. Adopt mony of the recommendotions of the Lond Use Study, but do not move forwordwith the Rt 53 project.

Mory Mothews/) - ,11

hi,L/U &'noaZ

Susan Zingle comments to CMAP on LIIS/E

At the last meeting, I spoke from notes, so this is the best approximation of what

create.

It is good that CMAP is having open houses and public comment at this voting session to allow public

involvement in the Route 53 process. But you have to ltave true determination to go through a 175-page

document, or even the executive summary, to get at the meaning. At best, it is a Very vague, broad

brush depiction of what impacts 53 will have. Much more to the point are the villgse meetings held by

Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods. I went to both, and there was no mistaking thQ feeling of the

residents when they saw artist renderings of a 16' high overpass 50' behind a neighbor's house. A street

that they know, a family that they know, a neighborhood that is forever changed. No other villages did

that. Yet Mundelein will have many of the same impacts, as will Grayslake. Residents of Gurnee are

concerned about (if) what the tolls will be along 1-20 at Hunt Club Road, O'Plaine, Milwaukee. And I

suspect very few residents know about having to pay 95 cents to enter or leave the tollway at Grand

Ave., to pay for a road few will ever use. There has been no true public outreach.

A second issue. In the responsiveness summary, CMAP related that there were qqestions about schools

and other amenities resulting from the extension of 5l-|. The answer was simply a dismissal of the

concern. Not good enough. CMAP identifies that there will be 25,500 new residential units built as a

result of 53. Using the rule of thumb of 600 houses = a new school, those new units will require 42

schools! Who's going to pay for that? How much land will that take? And then thgre are the park

districts, the libraries, fire districts, sewer service - how much is needed and who will pay.

CMAP also did not identify the "induced demand" coming from 53. Those 25,500 units will have 65,000

people. They will drop the kids off at soccer, go to the doctor, pick up groceries, take the dog to the vet

- thousands upon thousands of /ocol trips that will most likely not involve the tollway but that will

enormously congest the local roads. Where is the plan to improve the intersections and the roads to

handle this additional traffic?

And last, where is the forest preserve in all of this? Here we have a corridor with '19,000 acres of

sensitive land - ADID wetlands, pre-settlement forests -- real gems. And yet the forest preserve is out of

money, and is not a partner in helping identify and save these big swathes of land. How did that

happen?

said that I can re-

CMAP - Land Use Committee Meeting (Rte. 53 Extension) llt5t20t5Public Comments: Michael Sarlitto, Trustee, Village of Long Grove++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hello, my name is Michael Sarlitto, Trustee for the Village of Long GrovePlease excuse my reading of the following points as I don't believe I could articulate better, whathas been reduced to writing here...

WHEREAS, The Village of Long Grove recognizes the compelling need for solutions that addresstraffic congestion throughout Lake County and strongly supports solving existing severe congestionproblems on arterial roadways through repair, modernization, reconstruction, and widening whichwould offer effective congestion relief at a much lower cost than constructing the extension; and

WHEREAS, there are limited funds available for road construction, maintenance and repair; and

WHEREAS, extending FAP 342 (Illinois lRoute 53 Extension) will increase traffic on the existingarterial roads and intersections throughout Lake County that have been identified as being greatlycongested and in need of expansion/improvements without the additional traffic generated by IllinoisRoute 53; and

WHEREAS, the Illinois Route 53 Extension would attract unwanted and unnecessary suburbansprawl, remove jobs from central urban areas, add to an already accelerating rate of developmentthroughout Lake County promoting new suburban type development along this new corridor andself-defeating the avowed purpose for the extension in the first place, traffic control and ameliorationof the existing heavy traffic problems in Lake County; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Illinois Route 53 Extension would traverse and irretrievably damage anumber of environmentally sensitive areas; and

WHEREAS, the Village of Long Grove opposes the northern extension of Illinois Route 53 throughLake County due to its limited access, negative environmental consequences, damage to the ruralcharacter of communities within its path, and the acceleration of improper development and suburbansprawl that the proposed alternative would bring to Lake County; and

WHEREAS, consistent, compliant and compatible to the Village of Long Grove ComprehensivePlan opposing the extension of Illinois Route 53 through Lake County; and

WHEREAS, as recently validated by the results of ttre 2015 Village Residents Opinion Survey; and

WHEREAS, the Village of Long Grove challenges the State of Illinois and the County of Lake toput forth new alternatives reflecting immediately attainable and viable solutions to the trafficcongestion adversely impacting the quality of life...of Lake County residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED...

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Village of Long Grove hereby STRENUOUSLY OBJECTSto the curently designated extension of Illinois Route 53 north of Lake Cook Road. The Village ofLong GroveLong Grove submits that the Illinois Department of Transportation should give great consideration tothis resolution since Long Grove would be one of the communities most directly and adverselyalfected by this extension.

This resolution passed by a near unanimous vote a week ago Tuesday...CONCENSUS? I think not!

REF: Village of Long Grove Resolution Opposing IL Route 53 Extension, Passed 10/27 /2O15 by a vote of 5-l

Public Comments by Vanessa Griffin* from theThursday, November 5,2015 Land Use Committee Meetingat CLC Grayslake

*Please note thut I did not write out my comments so this is a rough sqmmary of the

remarks I made that day.

Good afternoon. My name is Vanessa Griffin, imd I'm a resident of Ha'uythom Woods.

Thank you for inviting public comment on this Land Use plan. Thanks for the public

information sessions and the invitation to participate in the process.

Let me first say that that asking the public to review a 170-page documqnt and give

meaningful input is akin to asking my nine-year-old to read and refnect on War & Peace.

It's probably not going to happen.

Luckily, there is a difference between me and my nine-year old, and I have read the

document. I compiled a three-page letter with my comments and questions which Isubmitted to CMAP. Respecting the time limit here today, there is not time to ask all ofthe questions in my letter here today.

If this is truly an open and transparent process as you have presented it, then I wouldexpect that allof the questions and comments you received during this process would be

compiled and available for public revi.ew, and I look forward to seeing the input fromothers.

I would also like to see in what ways you are changing the land use plans as a result ofthis public input. For what use is the public input unless it you can tell us how that input

has impacted the plan?

When I attended the Kildeer Open House I asked for a list of the Land IJse Committee

members. The consultant I spoke with at the meeting did not have a list of committee

members at the ready for me, and instructed m.e to go to the website to find the member

list. When I did visit the Land Use plan websile during the week leading up to the

comment deadline, seeking to review agendas and minutes from the six or so meetings

your commiuee had held over the past year or so, I was unable to view the minutes

documents. I got some kind of Dropbox Error, and was not able to review those

documents. That might seem like a small thing to you, but I don't think it is, especially

when you are claiming to have an open and transparent planning pfocess.

This is truly a aggressive, speculative development plan-a plan for urban sprawl

replacing wetlands, wildlife habitat and open space. It is NOT atraffrc congestion reliefplan, and to present it in that way is deceptive, I think cofllmerce has more than enough

space to thrive. We do not need more highway, more strip center, rnore industrial park,

more retail complex. We should be look for new an d more forward thinking ways to

make Lake County a destination for entrepreneurs and innovators, along with small and

medium sized businesses who serve the people of Lake County in their own backyards.

Thank you for your time.

7 r * rn : Er in C o n I ey +:<t <>+n1 u y'Q)'7 +| 1 tJ t),:; <t 1:t 1

?i*t:1*t:2: Rt. 53 commentsTla"t<z: Novembet 12,2015 at 12:34 PM

zl rs : I iv a*loi 2l; r2l".71an!y i3 plrt ttii <:n :rt

Hi there,A friend ond fellow Loke County resident letto comment.

me know obout this meeling,ond while r won't be oble to ottend, r would like

f grew up in o to ow live in Loke Zuric

yeors of the triol (spilling over from C

two ocres of ng w bosis, ond with wide

extending o sPoc s sofety ond noturol

is not Cook County (thonk 6od) ond it should not be. Not only do f desire the preservotion of the ethics our oreo hove long

held (preserving noture, history ond fomily), T desire the prevention of Cook County troffic {rom spilling ony further

north or west thon it olreody hos! f love ond volue the smoll towns, ond still stonding woods tlrot give chorm to ploces not

yet plogued by troff ic-- ploces like Woucondo, Howthorn Woods ond Volo.

Idonotwontto seeLongGroveorthesurroundingareaindustriolizedonymore.The"Coori{orPlonningforLivobilityondMovobility,,video described this industriolizotion os inclusiveof preserving noturol ossets, brlt who determines whot those

ossets are? Tnmy experience. much thot f hove volued (in ifs noturol stote os open lond) h rs been deemed not on osset

over theyeors-- only so more stores ond expensive homes (thot sit on the morket for yeors)]con be built. Essentiolly, this

video subtly soys "become o city, becouse cities oremore convenient to their residents." Nol only do f deliberotely not

live in o city, but Tbelievemost South Loke County residents prefer their wide oPensPoces,ond do not desire the busy

" ef f iciency" of o city lif e. Tf we did, we would live there.

With Sincerity,Erin Conley

847.668.9928

November L2,20Ls

TO: CMAPFM: Nancy Hill

6200 Oakmont Ln, Gurnee

RE: CMAP Land Use Draft Rt. 53/L20

As I am not able to attend the meeting just c,onvened for today, I'd like to submit mycomments in writing as a resident of Gurneer.

In reviewing the CMAP land use plan, thethroughout the document, ideas are presplanned", "identifies potential", "helps toetc. Further in the section regarding Indiand agencies are encouraged to take additional measures to protectltheselandscapes" - referring to "Core Landscapes". Seems to me a Core Il,andscapedeserves more than simply "encouraging" arlditional measures?

In the "benefits of section" is states: "Corridor Land Use Plan should help ensurethat, in addition to relieving congestion, the Illinois Route 53 /L20 ppoject willintegrate and preserve open space and natural areas, increase accegs to transit,promote effective development, and enhance economic development," All thesebenefits, but only IF the IGA is signed, and fcrllowed by the local municipalities, andwho will pay?

So, as a resident of Lake County in Gurnee, what can be said of a wish list? How can Ibegin to understand how it will really affect our beloved wetlands and forestpreserves such as Almond Marsh? To name just a few species living there whichwould be further endangered by a 120 bypass: I volunteer and manage a Bluebirdtrail there, as Bluebirds are a species that need assistance with habitat in order toavoid extinction; there is a Great Blue Heron Rookery...these herons cannot just"find another place to live", Grebes and Widgeons use the pond as a migrationstopover, I could go on and on. How is the Rt. 120 bypass being built? Are the"restoration and enhancement needs" for Almond Marsh going to be followed, ornot? I certainly cannot support the Rt. 120 bypass if they are not.

Additionally, I am extremely concerned about access to Rt. L20 as a tollway - itserves as our major thoroughfare. What will happen to our access via Hunt ClubRoad [where the current Rt. 120 becomes 4 lanes)? Is this going to become a tolledinterchange as I have seen on some maps? I, as thousands of other residents do, use

this intersection of Hunt Club & RL 120 m- go west to access Almond Rd going sout45 to go north or south. If this becomes tmajority of us who will not want to, or ca

Gages Lake Rd just to the north of I20 - tmorning, afternoon, and evening. Within about a mile section on it ttrere are 2largeelementary schools, SEDOL facilities, and W:rrren High School sitting on both sidesof Gages Lake Rd.

Going east on Rt. 1-20, we access tollway 294, or have free highway {ccess to Rt. 41- -howwould those who go to highway 4L getthere? Gages Lake Rd. going east doesnot go through to 4L - so how will this affect the next northern alterirative which isWashington Street? Anyway residents inthousands of commuters and drivers' trgreatly increase pressure on our local strto mention the projected additional truckcommunity?

I saw a map of roads in a document showing which roads and areas in Lake Countywill have insufficient road capacity in the year 2020 - our roads herp in Gurneewere the clearest. They certainly have the potential NOT to be, if this project isundertaken. I do not see a benefit for Gurnee; we will have multiplg increasedtaxes, more traffic, and more tolls, and more wear and tear on our local roads andenvironment.

Note: On this and other documents, you have listed Steve Park as a ilrustee ofGurnee. He has not been a Trustee since September 17 ,20t5 according to ourVillage website.

11t11t2015

From : Diane Stark <dianestark@yahoo.com>

To: WW53Com <ww-S3com@i | | i nois.sierracl u b.org>

Subject: My notes

Date: Wed, Nov 11,20152:12pm

i"t ""*nn

,*" tU pho*, not t;";; "otfrt"r. it ,or"rn" rras tre time to edit flris anO it tnere isvatue in it I

would be happy if you could read it for me tomonow.

Diane

This is personal:

Years ago when my husband and I made the decision to buy a home in northem illlinois we decided and settled inGrayslake. Even though I worked in Buffalo Grove and then in Vernon Hills it was the right choice for us. Everynight when I drove home from wot* it felt like I was going north for the weekend. lt wlrs like I was going to thecabin, I was passing by open fields, Forest Preserue and rustic beauty. We ultimatelyl landed in Arbor Vista acommunity that used to be a tree nursery. lt's bordered by the Forest Preserue, corn fields, marsh and open space. I

live on a bluff with a creek at the bottom and we often see Blue Heron walking in it. We love the serenity of theneighborhood which has larger lots, big houses and friendly neighbors. lt is the perfeot neighborhood.

munity whose entire premipe is built on conservingimpacted by the proposed 531120 extension andnorth side of our comnnunifies and put these subdivisions

Our property values will drop, resale of our homes will become difficult. We will move from a pristine community toan undesirable community. The Forest preserye, the wetlands, the heron rookerie and animal habitat will benegatively impacted.

Choices, it's all about choices! We made our decision to move into our neighborhood because of the ambience,because of the open space, because of the nature. We decided that the extra long drive was worth it.

Why am I now in a position where I must pay for those who chose to live in western suburbs to get home to theirfamilies faster or because they don't like the length of time it takes for them to drive to and from wherever it is theywant to get to.

Or is it really about development. Are we just trying to find a way to add more hornes and businesses so we canmake more money? Are we tricking ourselves into believing that this will be an ultimate solution when in fact we areadding to the problem.

I say stop it, find a way to eleviate traffic jams that will not kill communities and stop adding to the problem bydeveloping more homes where the traffic won't bear it.

Thank you.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

My notes

https J/mai l.aol.com/webm ai l-std/errus/Pri ntM essage 1t1

F r atn: C? C)1 23.i! a.t)1 t:tztrl

&z*h1u$t: My Opposition to the Route 53 Extension Projectffis't*: November 11 , 201 5 at 3:50 PM

7a: ltl av'ti*r is lisk*rx:r;rftyil.rSove*: ,Jllla.ntinoe)v?\v'i,(-)t{), l:vab1t:1e.kec*unt:ytii)99p.1t".6471i

Dear Mr. Lawlor & Members of the Land Use Committee,

As a taxpayer and resident of Lake County and one of your constituents, I am strongly opposed tolthe 53 Extension project.

I find your {esire for raising laxes, creating new tolls and creating additional governmental agenciQs, both troubling and quitecontrary to Republ ican/Conservative principles.

I am opposed to the new taxes and tolls this project will bring upon me and my neighborsI am opposed to the destruction of wetlands and open space that will result from this oroieI am opposed to the destruction of wetlands and open space that will result from this project.I am opposed to the staggering amount of money that might be spent on this project and how those much needed dollars couldI am opposed to the staggering amount of money that might be spent on this project and how thos]er _J__-be used more responsibly to improve our existing infrastructure as the roads of our county literallyJcrumble beneath our feet(Diamonrl I aka Rnad and I nko Trrrinh\(Diamond Lake Road and Lake Zurich)I am opposed to creating another annuity for the cash-flush ISTHA in perpetuity.I am skeptical about the aggressive projections made by your land use plan foi new retail, office ahd industrial development.I believe it's unfair to ask Hawthorn Woods and a handful of other communities to give up so nuchj to support the ambitions ofother parts of our county

Do not spend one more dollar of our tax/toll money or your time exploring this old, outdated idea.

Respectfully,

Christooher GriffinHawthorn Woods Resident

Building a giant new road WILL NOT solve our traffic congest ke them expopentially worse. I ask you tofind more fiscally reasonable ways of solving our traffic woes e Quentin/Ra/lO interiection has dohe mucnto alleviate the traffic congestion there). Be a responsible ste onev and invdst it into maintainino andupgrading our current roads and fixing our aging infrastructure i

I will not be able to ottend the lt.lZ.l5 meeting in Lipertyville.

I oppose the Rt. 53 extension becouse it costs too m,uch money,

environmentolly it is o disoster to our oPen sPoces ond Loke

County wetlonds. Finqlly more roqds bring more trofif ic

congestion ond pollution; both noise ond oir.

Don AnselmoGroyslake

b n. {,lr"ca nn..+=j 7

a. 4:ulJ U- l( -f e-. fl* ,

f"Y G^'q.-

: Jeffrey Berman> Fro jbe rma n @a nderso nwa nca.co m>

> Date: November S,ZOLS at 3:19:Lg pM CST

> To: Colin Fleming <cfleming@metrostrategiesinc.com>

> Cc: Aaron Lawlor <alawlorO3@yahoo.com>

> subject: Re: Meeting Materials: Nov. 5 lllinois Route s3/1,2ocorridor Land Use committee Meeting

> Unfoftunately it appears that comments will extend beyond the time I can remain at the meeting. Dueto a prior business commitment I have to catch a flight at o'Hare. of course if the 53 extension were inplace it would be much easier for me to get to the airport and I could have stayed longer. This is what Iwould stay if I were here for discussion and voting. I would appreciate it if someone would share it withthe committee at the appropriate time in the meeting.

> | have participated as a member of this committee and witnessed first hand the unprecedentedprocess and enormous amount of work that went into the document being presented today. This Reportreflects the outcome of not only incredible effort but tremendous compromises by and amongstakeholders of widely varying perspectives. No truly collaborative endeavor that is born in compromise,as this plan is, will be perfect or be without detractors. That is certainly true here. I don,t personallyagree with everything in the Report. Nor is the overall process complete; the next step is theEnvironmental lmpact study which will consider and address many of the concerns raised in thecomments' But, even with all that said, I genuinely believe the Report is meritoriously crafted, presentsa rationaland reasonable basis to move forward. lsupport adoption of the Report, and encourage theother members to vote to do so as well.

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 8

Attachment 2

Openlands Position Regarding the Illinois Route 53/120 Corridor Land Use Strategy

As a member of the Land Use Committee, we have appreciated tfre opportunity to participate in thisprocess' lt has generated great data and maps of natural resources, identified natural corridors, andrecommended mitigation opportunities and various strategies for protection. The process educatedparticipants about market conditions, offering strategies for locating development in the project area.

In May of 2012, Openlands agreed to conditionally support the recommendations of the Blue RibbonAdvisory Committee or "BRAC". We hoped to create an unprececlented national modelfortransportation planning. Ground-breaking criteria would producer innovative transportation andinfrastructure solutions that truly protect natural resoLtrces beyond set minimum standards.

This new process would ensure that the road project and resulting development would enhance ratherthan harm our interwoven network of natural areas. Unlike what we've seen, the project would notdegrade our landscapes, pollute our waterways, drive out or reduce wildlife populations, and fragmentecological corridors and working landscapes.

As a next step, the land use committee was established for local governments to collaborate and agreeupon adopting a regional land use plan. By thinking across boundaries, they would enhancedevelopment and build more effective transportation solutions beyond what is possible on an individualscale. The stakeholder process and binding commitment at this next stage was necessary to preventimpacts of development, environmental degradation and loss of community character fromundermining the value of the project.

This committee's work to date is valuable but incomplete. The report falls short of the intent andcondition in BRAC.

o The draft Land Use Strategy is merely a guidance document. lt is not a plan with clearimplementation steps.

o We did not create a model regional land use planning process, with a method to make decisionson development and natural resource protection that spans jurisdictions.

o Governing bodies within the project area did not all make binding commitments to enter intoIntergovernmental Agreements to adrcpt a land use plan that:

o steers development to appropriate locations to protect and restore environmentalresources,

o maximizes opportunities for liivable communities,o provides appropriate market opportunities, and

o supports a sound plan for the design, constructiorr and ultimate use of the road,

o The study also did not analyze impervious cover, address salt and use of chlorides, andintegrate BRAC requirements for mitigation.

L

since the draft report falls short of the regional land use planning condition of the Blue RibbonAdvisory committee, openlands cannot support its adoption, and sees it as premature to moveforward with the Environmental lmpact Statement process.

openl dsconserving noture for life

suite 1650 | 25 EastWashington street I chicago, lL 60602-1708 | Tet: 312-863-6250 | Fax: 312-863-6251 | wwwopenlands.org

Openlands Position Regarding the lllinois Route 5glt2o Corridor Land Use strategyNovember 5,2015

ln May of 2012, openlands agreed to conditionally support the recommendations of the Blue RibbonAdvisory Committee, which defined a framework and criteria for the Route 53 / r2O project. our hopewas that we would create an unprecedented, collaborative, and innovative national model fortransportation and infrastructure planning. lt would lead to ground-breaking strategies to design soundtransportation solutions that truly protect natural resources well beyond set minimum standards.The process was also to ensure that development stimulated by the road project wouldn,t causesecondary harm to surrounding natural areas. we have often seen how uncoordinated developmentcan degrade our landscapes, pollute our waterways, drive out or reduce wildlife populations, andfragment ecological corridors and working landscapes. Latent design features do not address thesecumulative impacts.

We also believed that the consensus-born approach of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee couldinspire binding commitments by local governments to collaborate and adopt a regional land use plan.They would agree to solid implementation strategies to minimize the diverse impacts of uncoordinatedgrowth and offer shared responsibility and benefit for development decisions and plans within the area.

The Benefits of the Corridor Land Use planning process

As a member of the Land Use Committee, we have appreciated the opportunity to participate in thisprocess over the last two years. lt has generated great data and maps of natural resources in theplanning area, has identified natural corridors, and recommended mitigation opportunities and variousstrategies for protection. The process educated committee participants about current and futuremarket conditions, offering strategies for locating commercial, residential ancl industrial development inthe project area. The market data, information and guidance can help municipal planners makeinformed decisions in the future.

Shortfalls of Process

Unfortunately, the draft report falls short of meeting the condition of the Blue Ribbon AdvisoryCommittee that local governments agree to adopt and follow a regional comprehensive land use plan,with a defined roadmap for implementation.

o The draft Land Use Strategy is merely a guidance document, rather than a plan with clearimplementation steps.

We did not create a model regional land use planning process that brought togetherstakeholders and produced a method to make decisions on development and natural resourceprotection that spa nned jurisdictions.

Governing bodies within the project area did not make binding commitments to enter intoIntergovernmental Agreements so that all of the stakeholders agree on a land use plan that:

o steers development to the appropriate locations to protect and restore environmentalresources,

o maximizes the opportunities for livable communities,o provides appropriate market opportunities, ando supports a sound plan for the design and construction and ultimate use of the road.

r The study was also incomplete in that it did not provide an analysis of impervious cover,determine how to address salt and use of chlorides, and establish requirements for mitigation asdefined by the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee.

Conclusion: Since the draft report falls short of the regional land use planning condition of the BlueRibbon Advisory committee, openlands cannot support its adoption, and sees it as premature tomove forward with the Environmental lmpact statement process.

An infrastructure project of the size of Route 53/ 120 requires collaboration among stakeholders toassure that the secondary impacts of development, environmental degradation and loss of communitycharacter do not undermine the value of the project for those living and working closest to it.comprehensive planning should be able to provide the mechanism to collaborate so that the sum ofenhanced development, transportation solutions and protection of natural areas and environmentalcorridors provides benefits which exceed individual municipal decisions. This process while it providedlots of information did not result in a clear strategy and way forward which gives us confidence that allof the places which we care about the most won't be severely impacted through bad decisions andha phazard development.

OPENLANDS' POSITION REGARDING THE LAND USE STRATEGY REPORT AND RESOLUTIONBEFORE THE tAND USE COMMITTEE

(November t1.,2OlS)

openlands has appreciated the opportunity to participate on the Land Use committee, and recognizesthe significant gains of the data and insight gathered through this process" However, we cannotsupport adopting the resolution and Land Use Strategy Report. one of the conditions of openlandssupport on the Blue Ribbon Advisory council was for localgovernments to commit to adopting a

coordinated regionalland use plan with a clearcooperative implementation strategythat protectsthenatural resources and open space in. That didn,t happen. Nu Canno* pror.tclz (nnyelsu,r .

I

Further we cannot support launching an environmental study of this project pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and other applicable laws. The resolution does not call for either the Tollwayor the lllinois Department of Transportation to adhere to the principles and tenants of the BRAC report.we include lDor since it will likely conduct the Environmental rmpact statement for the project.Neither agency is bound by BRAC. Nor are they compelled by legislation to incorporate BRAC,s land useand environmental elements into any design alternative studied and carried forward through thatprocess' At this point, we are not confident, given their track record on other projects in our region,that lDor will incorporate the innovative criteria for road design, operations and maintenanceprescribed by BRAC as part of the upcoming NEPA process. We are left without assurance that lDoT willpropose a road alternative that will protect the sensitive resources that we care about.

For these reasons and the ones we expressed last week, we will vote no on the resolution to adopt theLand Use Strategy and for the Tollway to move forward with a NEpA study in that both are prematureand already out of sync with the letter and intent of ERAC.

Statement by Michael Sands, PhD, Senior Associate, Liberw prairie FoundationOriginally made 1 1/5 / 2015,v+xr+;atr*- II / IZ / I

As a member of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Council [BRAC), I voted to adopt the Resolution andReport which defined a framework and criteria for moving the Route 53 / I20 project ahead as a21rst century model for new roadways.

The resolution required the following as next steps:Develop a Detailed Design ConceptDetermine How to Finance the project

Initiate a Corridor Wide Land Use Plan. fl draw your attention to the word "plan"')

The report in front of this committee is a response to this last step. The work of the past 2 years hasgenerated great data and maps of natural resources in the planning area, has identified naturalcorridors, and recommended mitigation opportunities and various strategies for protection. Theprocess educated us about current and future market conditions, offering strategies for locatingcommercial, residential and industrial development in the project area. The market data,information and guidance can help municipal planners make informed decisions in the future.

However, as a body of work in response to the BRAC requirements this report and resolution fallsshort.

o This is a "strategy" not a "plan".o We have not developed a process for developing protection measures and zoning overlays

to integrate land uses and natural resource protection across jurisdictions in a coordinatedfashion.

o It does not include any binding commitments by the County or the Municipalities to moveforward to developing and abiding by the actual zoning overlays.

Conclusion: Since draft report falls short of the regional land use planning condition of theBlue Ribbon Advisory Committee, I cannot support its adoption as a body of workresponding to the BRAC requirement to develop a Corridor Wide Land Use plan.

statement by Brad Leibov, Liberty prairie Foundation11/12/Is

As a body of work, this Land use strategy feil short of the Brue RibbonAdvisory council's recommendation that the county and localmunicipalities agree to adopt and follow a regionar comprehensive landuse plan with a defined roadmap for implemJntation.

Specifically,

' This is a strate gy and, not a pran, The strategy document is aguidance document, rather than a Land use plan with specificrecommendations and crear implementation steps. what we haveis a strategy that requires the blind faith of the environmentalcommunity to believe that future land use decisions will result inbalanced development, natural resource protection, and morelivable communities. It's conceptual and illustrative, it defers toexisting land use plans and comprehensive plans by including amenu of development @ypologies foi those siteslikely to change use, and whether o. not you adopt this strategychanges nothing on the grou rd"

. Not only do we have a stratea clear implementation stratcommitments by the Countyany other document, nor do we have any commitments orresources identified that would enable us to draft and enter into acorridor wide Intergovernmental Agreement that would create acorridor planning council, we krave no measures in place todetermine success or failure should the county or individualmunicipalities fail to adopt this or any plan, or enter into anintergovernmental agreement.

since we fell short on the development of a plan and the deveropment ofan implementation strategy to implement this strategy, both of whichwere conditions of the Blue Ribbon Advisory committee, I cannotsupport its adoption,

Land Use Committee #9 – Meeting Minutes DRAFT 9

Attachment 3 Route 53/120 Land Use Committee Motion, as amended

Route 53/120 Land Use Committee November 12, 2015

CMAP recommends the Land Use Committee consider the following Motion to Finalize and Accept the Illinois Route 53/120 Corridor Land Use Strategy

The Route 53/120 Land Use Committee:

1. Recognizes the importance of a balanced land use strategy for the Route 53/120 Corridor to achieve mobility, land use, economic development, community character, and environmental goals in Lake County;

2. Supports incorporating proactive planning concepts and ideas that will help minimize adverse impacts that can result from uncoordinated land use and transportation infrastructure investment;

3. Recognizes the unique opportunity we have to foster better coordination and cooperation by Corridor municipalities and other stakeholders to achieve the goals of Lake County, municipalities, residents, and others and to achieve better development outcomes;

4. Agrees to continue to work together to promote good planning and development practices in the future to achieve optimal outcomes for land use, open space and natural resources, community character, and economic development;

5. Agrees that the Route 53/120 Land Use Strategy provides good, forward-thinking planning guidance to local authorities charged with making land use and development decisions;

6. Agrees to accept the Route 53/120 Land Use Strategy report and the Summary of Comments and Proposed Responses dated November 4th, 2015 and to submit the report for each municipality’s consideration;

7. Acknowledges that this motion does not bind municipalities to adopt the Land Use Strategy, enter into an IGA, nor support the Route 53/120 facility itself, which is up to individual communities and the public;

8. Agrees to work within respective jurisdictions and constituencies to consider adopting the Land Use Strategy as an addendum to municipal comprehensive plan or as a separate planning guide document; and to consider entering into a cooperative agreement with other Corridor municipalities in order to ensure better coordination and cooperation on planning and development issues by November 1, 2016;

9. Recommends the Tollway continue to work with the Land Use Committee or its successor to cooperatively work toward achieving our shared vision; and

10. Recommends the Tollway further examine the proposed project to better understand its effects on the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment.

Attachments to Motion

• Corridor Land Use Strategy Report and Executive Summary (with edits)