Board member Libby Shafer and Councilmember Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th) at the January 2026 Environment Board meeting. Credit: Igor Studenkov Evanston’s Environment Board’s review of the latest draft
The long-discussed ordinance would set a unified policy to regulate development and protect natural habitats and shoreline along Lake Michigan. The city wanted several boards, committees and commissions, including the Environment Board, to give input on the ordinance before it goes to the City Council for potential adoption later this year. The board reviewed an earlier version in December
During the meeting, Councilmember Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th), who previously sat on the Environment Board, indicated he would oppose one particular aspect of the draft ordinance.
The current version would require any sale or long-term lease of public lakefront property that interferes with public access or hurts green spaces to be approved by public referendum. Nieuwsma argued the referendum process could be too easy to manipulate and that requiring a two-thirds majority of the council to approve any sale or long-term lease of the property would be enough. This led to a discussion of what protections, if not an outright ban, should be in place.
The board broadly agreed it supports something stronger than a supermajority vote.
Updated Lakeshore Protection Ordinance The current draft ordinance is dated Jan. 18, 2026. Like the earlier version, it would create a “Lakefront Protection Zone,” though the definition was tweaked to include “all shoreline, publicly owned structures, beach and green space, east of Sheridan Road, or east of Lake Shore Boulevard between Greenwood and Lee streets.” Similar to the earlier version, it exempts the Evanston Water Plant and existing private properties. The ordinance also includes all publicly owned property and green spaces around Sheridan Road, all properties zoned U3 (or any future equivalent) within 200 feet of Lake Michigan, all existing lagoons and “land below the ordinary high water mark subject to the City of Evanston’s authority to protect public health, safety and welfare.” All of Cornelia Lunt Park and Patriot Park are included as well.
U3 properties are centered on Northwestern’s lakefront campus near Sheridan Road and integrate university operations within the community.
The previous version of the ordinance required the city to assess current conditions within the protection zone within a year of the ordinance’s adoption. The current version extends that period to two years. Seemingly in response to Environment Board feedback that the earlier language was too vague, the updated ordinance specifically states that the assessment must be completed by a “qualified shoreline ecologist, water quality expert, and/or civil engineer” and specifies that they must analyze “habitats, water quality, percentage of open space, etc. to serve as a reference for the City to determine whether it is meeting the values, needs, and intentions, and Conservation Measures of this Ordinance.”
While both versions of the ordinance call for the city to establish long-term conservation measures within the protection zone, the update replaces the language requiring that those plans are developed in collaboration with Northwestern University, lakefront stewards and local residents with references to “lakefront stakeholders.” The revised ordinance defines that term as “any resident or organization with non-publicly owned property abutting or adjacent to the Lakefront Protection Zone.”
The current version also tweaks policies around the sale and lease of public property within the protection zone. The previous version required any sale of the property to be approved by two-thirds of the City Council and a majority of Evanston voters in a public referendum. The same requirements would have applied to any lease “that may restrict public access, diminish public amenities, or fail to preserve or protect Green Space.” For leases that don’t restrict access, a two-thirds vote and a public hearing were enough.
The current language would make the sale or lease that lasts at least 90 days that restricts public access, diminishes public amenities or doesn’t preserve or protect green space subject to the referendum and two-thirds vote requirements. For other sales and leases, the two-thirds vote requirement and a public hearing would be enough. This change came after concerns that, as written, even short-term leases might be subject to referenda.
Nieuwsma noted that the two-thirds requirement already applies to the sale of city-owned property anywhere in Evanston.
Environment Board discussion As discussion of the revised draft got underway, Nieuwsma told the board that, in the interest of “full transparency,” he would oppose the referendum requirement once the ordinance goes before the City Council. When asked to elaborate, he said he believed the supermajority requirement was enough and that such referenda would be easily manipulated.
“Unless we can ensure that every voter in Evanston is fully informed on the issue and turns out to vote, we set ourselves up for the issue to be dominated by special interest groups, one way or another,” Nieuwsma said. “And they can run up the vote by finding the folks to vote in their favor, whereas most of the Evanston residents I’m elected to represent are either ignorant or don’t care.”
He recalled the pair of 2007 referenda — one on whether the city should stay at the Civic Center at 2100 Ridge Ave. and one on whether the city should issue bonds to repair it. The former passed overwhelmingly, but the latter was defeated after slightly more than half the voters voted against it. The condition of the building continued to deteriorate, leading to the move to 909 Davis St.
Putting the sale and lease to referendum might give similarly conflicting advice, Nieuwsma said.
Environment Board co-chair Paula Scholl responded that the concerns that the referendum wouldn’t truly reflect the will of the majority of Evanstonians apply to the supermajority requirement as well. She argued that the threshold for selling off lakefront property should, if anything, be more stringent.
“Lakefront, once it’s sold, it’s gone,” Scholl said. “Just leaving it up to the whims of the council that might be trying to close the budget, absolutely not.”
She urged “something stronger than a referendum,” while board member Jerri Garl argued for banning the sale of lakefront public property altogether.
Board member Olin Wilson-Thomas argued that if there is a referendum that could lead to a change in character of any property, “NIMBYs are more likely to show up than YIMBYs.”
After some further discussion, Nieuwsma suggested raising the threshold to requiring at least seven out of nine council members. Later during the meeting, Wilson-Thomas also suggested the board may not have the expertise to figure out the particulars of the “stronger than referendum” protections.
“We know what we want, we don’t know how to accomplish it, so let the [city] attorneys handle it,” he suggested.
More feedback Board member Libby Shafer had some concerns about the goal of “preserving and expanding green space along the lakefront, including native plantings.” She said that “preserving” implies trying to restore the area to its earlier, presettlement state, “whereas ‘conserving’ includes people” while trying to maintain as much of the nature as possible. Shafer said she’d be in favor of the latter approach.
She also reiterated the concern she raised in December — that the current language would make lighthouse dune
Environment Board co-chair Katarina Topalov suggested taking an approach similar to Chicago’s Montrose Beach Dunes Natural Area
“They kind of close them sometimes and open them sometimes,” she said.
Related Stories
