Atorney No. $5881 3 THE CINCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, LUNES COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVSIBMCH 4 7 3 9 NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES and LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS, Case No. Plaintiffs, COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS and CITY OF CHICAGO, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) vs. 5 d d ) ) Defendants.) ) ) ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Paimtiffs, based on knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and on information and belief as to all other matters, allege as follows for their Complaint against Defendants City of Chicago (or the “City") and the Commission on Chicago Landma ks (the “Landmarks Commission” of “Commission” INTRODUCTION 1. This action seeks to correet an improper circumvention of the Chicago Landmarks Ordinance by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and to ensue that lvful procedures are followed to allow appropriate consideration of the preservation of Prentice‘Women's Hospital (“Prentice) ~ a unique work of architecture designed by the world-famous Bertrand Goldberg, @ native Chicago architect and engineer. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Illinois Admitistrative Review Law (or alternatively pursuant to similar common law mechanisms for review) to challenge the Commission's resolution to rescind its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice moments after, and atthe same hearing in ‘which, the Commission determined that Prentice met the historical and architectural standards for landmark designation and thus for consideration by the Chicago City Council. Plaintifis further request an immediate stay of the Commission's improper rescindment so that they may correct this misapplication of the law. 2. On Thursday, November 1, 2012, the Landmarks Commission passed preliminary tandmark recommendation for Prentice in accordance with Chapter 2-120, Section (630 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. At the same meeting, pursuant to a pre-orchestrated arrangement with the Departmeat of Housing and Economie Development, the Commission then voted to rescind its own recommendation based solely upon criteria that the Commission is expressly not permitted to consider in connection with deciding whether to make a “recommendation to the City Cosneil for designation.” MCC § 2-120-620, 3. The Landmarts Ordinance (defined below) expressly provides that the Commission has the duty, power, and responsibility, infer alia, “[{J]o hold hearings and to recommend that the City Council designate by ordinance. . . buildings ... as officiat ‘Chicago Landmarks," if they qualify as defined hereunder...” § 2-120-610(2) (emphasis added). In connection with this “recommendation” phase of the landmark process, the Landmarks Ordinance expressly defines and limits the criteria to be considered by the 2Commission. In this respect, the ordinance specifies tat “the commission shall limit its consideration solely to" seven enumerated criteria regarding the architectural and historical ficance of the property in question. § 2120-620 (emphasis added). The Landmarks Ordinance vests the City Couscil with final say on whether economic factors outweigh the interest in preserving important architecture, On November 1, the Landmarks Commission properly limited itself co its enumerated criteria when making it preliminary landmark designation. That frst resolution passed with a unanimous vote. But then, pursuant to an Unprecedented process with a predetermined outcome, the Landmarks Commission purported to “rescind” its own recommendation, at the very same hearing, based solely on economic considerations. In so doing, the Landinarks Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority by violating the plain lnguage and intent of the Landmarks Ordinance and usurping @ role reserved forthe Cty Cour 4. Plaintiffs are non-profit enties in favor of preserving Prentice who participated, as they could, in the Commission's November 1 meeting and who intend to participate infuure hearings required by the Landmarks Ordinance. Paints request thatthe Court immediately stay the Landmarks Commissions reseindment of is preliminary landmark recommendation, As a result ofthe requested stay, the Commission's preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice would stand. Because a preliminary lantmark recommendation restricts the permits that may be issued for a property, a stay in this ease would preserve the ‘status quo by effectively preventing the City from issuing a demolition permit for Prentice until the case is decided. Ultimately, the Court should reverse the Commission's decision to rescind its landmark recommendation and shoul remand the matter to the Landmarks Commission to