SIXTH DIVISION March 5, 2010 Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns. COND OMIN IUM AS SOCI ATIO N OF ) CO MM ON

WEA LT H P LA

ZA, a n Il l i n oi s N ot- ) For-Prof i t Corporati on; SUHA

IL A L CH AL AB I; ) Appe al fro m the VIRGINIA

M. HA RDING; and DARR

EN MOSS, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois. Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, ) v. ) ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Mun ic ipa l ) No. 06 CH 22757 Co rp or at ion; T HE CHI CAGO PLAN ) COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICA GO; ) LORI T. HE ALEY , C ommissione r, Dep ar t ment ) of Plann in g and Dev

el opmen t; RESURRECTION ) HE ALT H C ARE , an I llino is N o t - Fo r - Pr o fit ) Ho no r ab le Cor por ation; and S AINT JOS EPH H OSPI TAL, ) So ph ia H all, an I lli nois N ot -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion; ) Judge Presidin g. ) Def endan ts-A ppel l ees . )

_____________________________________________________________________________ COND OMIN IUM AS SOCI ATIO N OF ) CO MM ON

WEA LT H P LA

ZA, a n Il l i n oi s N ot- ) For-Prof i t Corporati on; SUHA

IL A L CH AL AB I; ) VIRGINIA

M. HA RDING; and DARR

EN MOSS, )

) Appe al fro m the Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of v. ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois. ) THE CHICAGO PLA

N COMMISSION OF THE ) CITY OF CHICAGO, LINDA SEARL , Vice ) Chai rm an and A cti ng C ha i rm an ; L ORI T. ) No. 06 CH 12361 HE ALEY , S ecr et ar y, and Co mmi ssio ner of t he ) Depa rt ment o f Planni

ng and D evelop ment; ) AL DERM AN WIL LIA M J.P . BA

NK S, ) ALDERM

AN EDWA

RD M. BURK

E, ALLISON ) Ho no r ab le S. DA VIS, MA YOR R ICHA RD M . DA

LEY, ) So ph ia H all, LEON D. FIN NEY, J R., DOR IS B. HO LLEB, ) Judge Presidin g. CAROL E BROWN, A

MRISH K. MA

HAJA N, ) GEORGE W. MIGAL

A, AL DERMAN BU

RTON )Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-2-

F. NATARUS, JOHN H. NE LSON, NANCY ) A. PACHER, A

LDERMA

N MARY ANN ) SMITH, A

LDER MA N BER NA RD L . STONE, ) ALDERMAN REG NER “RAY” SU AREZ, ) me mb ers of the Com

mi ssion; RESURRECTION ) HE ALT H C ARE , an I llino is N o t - Fo r - Pr o fit ) Corpor ation; SA

INT JOSEPH HOSPITAL, an ) Illinois No t -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion; ) ) Def endan ts-A ppel l ees . )
JU STI CEJO SEP H G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: This ca se c ons ists of t he co nso lidat ion o f tw o a ppe als fro m act ions br ou ght by the Co nd o minium A ss o cia t io n o f Co mmo nw ea lt h P laz a ( Co mmo nw ea lt h P laz a) , Su ha il al C ha lab i, Vi rg i n i a M . H ardi

n g, a n d D ar re n Mos s, b oth

al l eg i n g i m prope r lan d u sa ge b y Re su rre cti on He al th Ca r e ( Re su rr ec t io n) an d S t . Jo se ph Ho sp it al ( St
. Jo se ph ) ( co llec t ive ly, t he ho sp it al d efe nd an t s) in
co nne ct io n w it h t he S t . Jo se ph ca mp us , wh ich is lo ca t ed wit hin25 0 f ee t o f p lain t iffs ’ p r o pe rt y. In t he first act ion ( do cke t No . 0 6 CH 227 57) , p laintiffs challenged t he validity o f a zo ning
am endm ent passed b

y the Ci ty of Ch ic ago in fav or o f the h

ospital defen dants. On Jul

y 28, 2006, t he Chica go city co uncil pas sed an o rd inance c hanging t he zo ning classificat ion o f cer t ain land
ar ou nd t he St . Jo sep h campu s t o a llow Re sur re ct ion t o c ond uct furt her deve lop ment o f the
cam pus, in cl udin g the construction of a m

edi cal off ic e bui ldi ng, pursuant to an Institutional Plan ned Dev el opmen t (IPD) . Plai

ntif fs brought suit agai

nst the hospi

tal def endan ts as well as agai nst the ci ty of Ch ic ago, t he Ch

ic ago Plan

Comm is sion (Plan

Comm is sion), and Comm

is sioner Lori T. Healey

(coll ecti vel y , the ci ty de fe ndan ts), seeki ng a judici al

decl arati on that the IPD
or dinance was invalid. Plaint iff s co nt ende d t hat t he I PD or dinance was in violat ion o f theNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-3-

Ch i ca go z oni n g ordi n an ce , i n th at th e prop ose d of

f i ce b ui l di n g e x ce eded

th e f l oor p l an den si ty lim itat ions o f the pr eexist ing zo ning classificat ion, t he building wa s no t a pe rmitt ed u se o f the pr o pe rt y, a nd t he I PD o r din an ce faile d t o r eq uir e t ha t co nst ruc t io n be gin wit hin a ce rt ain tim efram e to pr even

t lapse of the rezonin

g. They al so contended that t hey

were deni

ed pr oc edu ra l and su bst ant ive due pr oc ess in co nnect ion wit h t he Plan C ommission’s hear ing o n t he ord in ance. The tr ial

cour t gr anted summ

ary j udgment for defendants on plai ntif fs’ f irst
co nt ent io n, finding t hat lac k o f co nfo rmit y wit h Ch ica go zo ning o rd inanc es wo uld no t jus t ify in val ida tion of the IPD. The court additiona ll y f ound that t here was n

o just reason to delay enf orcement o r appeal of i

ts o rder under I ll

in ois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 I ll . 2d R. 304(a )). In the se con d a cti on ( doc ke t No. 0 6 C H 1 236 1), pl ai nti f f s s ough t ad m i ni stra ti ve rev i ew of
a re sol ution a dopte d by the Plan Com m i ss i on a ppr ovi ng an appl i ca ti on m ade b y Re su rre cti on under the Lake Mic

hi gan an d Chi cago Lakefront Prot ection Ordi nan ce (Chi cago Munici

pal Code §16–4 et seq. (ef

f . Octobe r 24 , 19 73) ) (L akef

ron t Prote cti on Ordi na nc e) to ob

tai n p erm i ss i on f or its pl ann ed devel opmen ts on the St. Joseph cam

pus. Plai ntif fs further contended that Resurrection was

operating a parki

ng l ot in violation of

a 1982 special

use perm it whi ch requi red t hat t he pa rk ing lot be clo sed and lo cke d aft er 8 p. m. The t rial co ur t dismissed t he co unt
co nc er ning t he o pe r at io n o f t he pa rkin g lo t an d c er t ified it fo rap pe al a s w ell. Plai nti f f s a ppe al f rom both of the se orde rs , an d thei r ap pe als h ave b een c ons ol i da

ted . F or th e rea son

s th at f oll ow, we af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. I. BACKG

ROUNDNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-4- A. 06 CH 22757 Plai ntif fs ’ compl ai nt in the fi rst of the two consoli

dated cases now be fore us, whi ch they fi le d on October 24, 2006, alle ged the fol lowi ng f acts that are not in

dis pute. On March 12, 20 04 , Re su rr ec t io n file d a n app lica t io n w it h t he cit y o f Ch ica go , r eq ue st ing t ha t t he cit y co un cil ch an ge th e z oni n g c l as si f i ca ti on of certai n sp ec i f i ed l an d a rou n d th e S t. J ose ph ca m pu s i n order to allow f or im ple me ntation of an

IPD on the propert y. A

dditionally

, on February

18, 2004, Resu rr ect ion ap plied t o t he Plan C ommission fo r a ppr ova l of its deve lop ment p lans und er t he Lakef ront Pro tection Ordin

ance (Ch ic ago Munici

pal Code §16–4 et se

q. (ef f . Octobe r 24, 19 73)), which provides that any phy sical change m

ade to pro pert y i

n Chi cago’s lakefront district must fi rst be approved by

the Plan Comm is sion. In its proposal, Res urrection lis

ts “long-term m

aster campu s planning” as w ell as a nu mber o f shor t -t er m project s, includ ing multiple bu ilding addi tions, i nterior renovati ons, and 1 1/2 addi tional fl oor s of parki

ng structure. On May

19, 2006, the Plan

Comm is sion hel d a publ ic heari ng on these two appli

cations. The Pl

an Com m i ss i on th en gra nte d a ppr ova l to Re su rre cti on’ s p l ans u

nd er th e L akef ron t Prote cti on Ordin ance an d is sued a recomm

endati on to the ci

ty counci l c omm ittee on zoni

ng that Resurrection’ s rezoni

ng appl ic ation be granted. Subsequen

tly, the city

council of

Chi cago voted to enact an ordi

nan ce that changed the

zoni ng cl assifi cation of the s

ubj ect proper ty i

n accordance with R esurrection’s

request and approved the requested IPD. Pl ai n ti f f al Ch al ab i i s th e v i ce pr es i den t of Com mon we al th Pl az a, wh i ch owns prop er

ty wi th i n 25 0 f eet of th e rez on ed

property , a n d p l ai n ti f f s H ardi n g a n d M oss are ow n er s of se pa ra te pr o pe rt ies at t ha t sa me a dd r es s. T o ge t he rwit h C o mmo nw ea lt h P laz a it se lf, t he y br o ug ht su itNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-5-

und er se cti on 11- 13-25 of the Il l i noi s Mu ni ci pal Code (6 5 ILC S 5/11 -13-25 (We st 2006 )), seeki ng a j udic ia

l de cl aration that the IPD ordinan ce passed b

y the ci ty counci l was void for two
r ea so ns . Fir st , un de rt he he ad ing “T he Ch alle ng ed I P D O r di na nc es ar e V o id as Ar bit r ar y, Ca pri ci ous , an d U nr ea son ab l e,” the y con ten de d that the ord

i na nc e w asi nv al i d b ec au se

i t did n ot
com pl y wi th e xi sti ng zon i ng ordi na nc es . Sp ec i f

i cal l y , th ey al l eg ed tha t the ordi na nc e di d n ot subs t ant ially

co mply with t he floo r a re a r at io r equ irement s set ou t unde r se ct ion 1 7- 8- 090 1 o f the Ch i cago Z oni

ng Ord i na nc e (C hi cago Z oni ng Ord i na nc e § 17- 8-0 901 (20 06) ); tha t i t did n ot compl y w ith the terms of the Lake front Prot ection Ordi nan ce; that i t mi sstates the correct procedu re f or obtai ni ng a pprov al f or sub seq uen t constructi on propos al s; that i t di d not req

ui re co nst ru ct ion t o be gin wit hin the t ime li mits se t ou t in sect ion 1 7- 13- 061 2 o f the Chicag o Z oning Ordi na nc e (Ch i cago Z oni

ng Ordi na nc e §17 -13-06 12 (20 06)) so as t o p re vent lapse of t he
rezon i ng;and tha

t it “ does n

ot provide an

y va l i d or reas onabl e j ustif

i cation” f or the re zoni

ng. Second, under the headi

ng “Plai ntif fs Were Depri

ved of Procedural

and Subs tantive Due Process,” plai

ntif fs contended that they were depri ved of thei

r due process righ

ts during the Pl

an Com m i ssi on’ s heari ng on May 19, 200 6, be caus e the i

r wi tnes ses and repre sen

tativ es were harassed by

Comm issi on mem bers and they were not reaso nabl y af forded t he righ

t o f crossexaminat ion. Pl ai ntif f s f i l ed a m otion sty l ed “ Pl ai ntif f s’ Moti on f

or Parti al Sum mary Judg men t,”
con ten di n g th at th e c our t sh oul d h old th e I PD ordi

n an ce v oi d a s a matte r of l aw b as ed on i ts alleged nonc omp liance wit h t he Chica go Zo ning Or dinance . I nitially, on D ece mber 1 4, 200 7, t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed p laintiffs’ mot ion, finding tha t t he I PD “is in vi olat ion o f the Chicag o z oningNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

1 Unde r t he 19 70 c ons t itu t ion, a ho me ru le unit is defined a s any municipality wit h a popu l ati on of ove r 25 ,00 0, or

an y cou nty wi th a ch i ef executi ve of f i cer el ec ted by the el ec tors of the cou nty . Il l . Con st. 1 970 , ar

t. VI I, § 6(a

). Chi cago’ s status

asa h ome ru l e m un i ci pal i ty i s n ot disputed by the parties. -6- or dinance and is vo id.” In p ar t icular , it fou nd t hat t he I PD co nfli ct ed w ith t he Chica go Zo ning Or din an ce in t hr ee wa ys: t he t imet ab le fo rco nst ruc t io n d id n o t sa t isfy t he lap se pr o visio n in section 17-13-0612 of the ordi nan ce, the propo sed off

ic e bui ldi ng ha d an un acceptable fl

oor area ra ti o un der s ecti on

17 -1 3- 06 12 of

th e ordi n an ce , a n d th e prop ose d of

f i ce b ui l di n g w as n ot a per mitt ed u se o f the pr op er t y under t he pr eexist ing zo ning classificat ion. On Ja nu ary 14, 200 8, th

e c i ty an d hosp i tal de f en da nts se pa rate l y f i l ed moti ons f or recon siderati

on of the tri al court’s order. They

conten ded that under Landmarks Pre servation Council v. City of Chicago , 12 5 I l l . 2d 16 4, 5 31 N. E.2 d 9 (1 98 8) , the c our t l acke d a uth ori ty to in val ida te an ordinan

ce passed b

y a home rule m uni ci pality such as the ci ty of Ch ic ago on gro unds that t he m unici pality fai le d to follow i

ts own self

-im posed procedures in e

nacti ng the ordin

ance. 1 On April 23, 2008, after hearing oral arguments by the part ies, the trial court gr anted defendants’
mo t io ns f o rr ec o nsid er at io n. T ho ug h it de cline d t o r ec o nsid er it s p r ev io us st at ut o ry ana lysis fi ndi ng i nconsis tencies between the IPD and the Chicago Zoning Ordi nance, i t nevertheless agreed to r ehear the cas e on the lim ited i ssue of wh

ether such i

nconsistencies were proper grounds for j udic ia

l i nva li dation of the ordi

nan ce. Aft er t he t ria l co ur t gr ant ed t he mo t io n fo r r ec o nsid er at io n, o n Ju ne 3 , 2 00 8, pla int iffs moved f or leave to amen

d their complai

nt to add an all

egation that defendan

ts “violated plain

tiff s’Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-7-

co nst it ut io na l rig ht s u nd er t he du e p r o ce ss cla us es o f t he Un it ed St at es an d I llino is Co nst itu t ions. ” T he co ur t gr ant ed t heir mo t ion. Defe ndan ts then f il ed a j oint m

ot ion s eeki

ng partial sum ma ry j udgme nt on their own behalf re gar ding t he inco nsist encies a lleged by plaint iff s bet wee n t he I PD and t he Chica go Zo ning Ordinan ce. On August 20, 2008, t he trial court gr anted t hi s motion, reaso ni ng as fol lows: “The C ourt , havi

ng previ ously ruled that Insti

tut iona l Pl ann ed Devel opmen t 1019 (th e ‘ IPD ’) i s n

ot i n c om pl i an cewi th th e Chi cago Z oni ng Ord i na nc e, b ut that b as ed

upon t he de cisions in Landmarks Pre servation Council of Illinois v. City of Chicago , 12 5 I ll. 2d 164 (1988 ), Hanna v. City of Chicago , 3 31 I ll. App. 3d 2 95 ( 1st Dist . 2 002 ), and Napelton [ sic ] v. Village

of Hinsdale , 20 08 W

L 2 278 85 (Ju

ne 5, 2 008 ), th

i s l ac k of
co mpliance did no t sup po rt an o rd er invalidating t he I PD , he re by fi nds t hat t her e is no genuin e issue of m

aterial f act re mai ni ng as to w hether such a lack of compl ian ce, as a matt er of law , vio late s any pr ovisio n of a st at e o r fed er al st at ut e o r c ons t itu t ion, including the due process clauses of bot h the Un ited States and Illi

nois constitutions, as wel

l as 65 ILCS 5/11-13-25, solel

y on a ccount of its purported non-complia nce wi th the Chi cago Zoni ng Ordi na nc e.” The trial court found that, pursuant t o Rule 304(a) ( 210 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) , t here was no just reason f or delay in g ei ther enf orcemen t o r appeal

of the order. The trial c ourt al so granted pla int iffs’ mo t io n t o st ay t he pr o ce ed ing s p en din g t his a pp ea l. B. 06 CH 12361 The second cas e currently bef ore us was in

itiated on June 21, 2006, when pla in tif fs fi le d aNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-8-

“compl ain t for ad mi ni strat iv e review, to enjoin i

ll egal use of propert y, and f or o ther relief

” agains t the Pl an Com m i ssi on an d the hosp i tal def endan ts. The com plai nt consi sted of

two counts. I

n cou nt I, which is not at issue in the instant a ppeal, plaintif fs sought to void the P lan Comm issi on’s May 19 , 2 006 , a dministr at ive dec ision t o a ppr ove Resu rr ect ion’s d evelo pment pr op os al as being in confo rmance wit h t he pr ovisio ns o f the Lak efro nt Pr ot ect ion Or dinance . ( By co nt ra st , in t he first cas e, plaint iff

s so ught t o vo id t he cit y cou ncil’s par allel legislative d ecisio n t o a ppr ove t he IP D. ) I n sup po rt of t his co unt , p laintiffs alleged t hat at t he Ma y 19 hea ring, no c omp et ent
ev i denc e w aspre sente d to s how tha t the prop osa l wa s i n l i ne wi th th e L akef ron t Prote cti on Ordi na nc e, an d the Pl an Com m i ssi on di d not rec i te an y f i ndi ngs of f act i n a pprovi ng th e proposa l
. In count II, plai

ntif fs contended that the hospital defen dants were usi

ng a parki ng l ot , known as t he S ur f St re et Lo t , in vio lat io n o f t he c o ndit io ns s et fo rt h in a 1 98 2 s pe cia l us e p er mit. Pla int iffs al l eg ed tha t the sp ec i al us e p erm i t l i m i ted the pa rki ng l ot’s hou rs of operati on f rom 6:3 0 a .m . to 8 p.m. an d required that i

t be locked at al

l other tim

es. They further al le ged that the hospital defen dants were keepi

ng the l ot open and un

locked past 8 p.m . and thereby dis turbed the “peace, quiet , he alth, and c omfo rt of P laintiffs” in an unsp ecified fashio n. Ac co rd ingly, plaintiffs so ught to enj oin the h

ospital defen dants f rom contin

uin g to use the parki

ng l ot in violation of

the special
us e p er m i t. By way of ans wer, the Plan

Comm is sion fi le d the record o f the adm

in is trat iv e proceedin

gs that plai ntif fs sought to review. The record reflects that St . Joseph hel d more than 30 m

eetin gs wi th com m un i ty mem b er s b etw een

A ug ust 20 03 an

d J un e 2 00 6 i n order to “ addr es s c om

m un i ty concerns about the hospi

tal’s propo sed plann

ed devel opmen t.” It further states that “Al dermanNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-9-

Tunn ey [whose wa

rd con tai ns the s ubj ect property] attended al most eve ry one of thes e m eeti ngs . I n a dd it io n, r ep r es en t at ive s o f t he Cit y’s Pla nnin g a nd T r an sp o rt at io n D ep ar t men t s p ar t icip at ed in
man y of these meeti ngs .” The hosp i tal def endan ts f i l ed a m otion und er se cti on 2-6 19 of

the C ode of

Ci vi l Procedu re (73 5 IL CS 5/2 -61 9 (W

es t 200 9)) to di sm

i ss cou nt I I, c onte

nd i ng tha t the re wasno v

i ol ati on be ca us e t he I PD o r din an ce pa ss ed by t he cit y co un cil va lidly s up er se de d t he sp ec ial u se pe rmit in que st ion. On Ma y 8, 2 007 , t he t rial co ur t issued an o rd er gr ant ing t heir mo t ion t o d ismiss co unt II, an d i t sub seq uen tly certif i ed thi s rul

i ng f or appea l und er Ru l e 304 (a) (21 0 Il

l . 2d R. 3 04(a))
. Count I remai

ns pen din g bel ow. As both appeals concern the val idi ty of the ord in

ance approving the hospital def endants’ IPD, they h

ave b een consol

ida ted. II. AN

AL YSIS On ap pea l, plaint iff

s co nt end t hat t he cit y’s pas sag e o f an o rd inance t hat co nt ra dict ed t he terms of i ts earli er zonin g ordinan ce was a “

per se” vi olation of their due process ri

ghts as pr o mise d b y t he I llino is a nd Un it ed St at es co nst it ut io ns a nd by se ct io n 1 1- 13
- 25 ( b) o f t he I llino is Mu nic ipa l Co de , wh ich pr o vid es , “T he pr inc iple s o f su bst an t ive an d p r o ce du r al d ue pr o ce ss ap ply at all sta ges of t he de cision- making and re view o f all zoning d ecisio ns.” 65 I LCS 5/ 11- 13- 25( b) ( We st 20 06 )
. De fen da nt s, o n t he o t he rha nd , ar gu e t ha t un de ro ur su pr eme co ur t ’s de cis io n in Landmarks , 12 5 I ll. 2 d a t 17 9- 80 , 53 1 N
. E
. 2d at 15
- 16 , wh ich wa s c it ed by t he t r ial c o ur t in renderi ng i ts decis ion, an

ordinan ce enacted b

y a home rule m unici pality ma y n ot be i nva li dated merel y b ased on the municipal

ity’ s fai lure to follow its own self -im posed r egulations.Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-10-

W e a gr ee wi th de f en da n ts th at Landmarks and it s pr og eny are co nt ro lli ng in t his case . As shal l b e devel oped below, despite the due process ven eer that plai

ntif fs have attempted to pla

ce up o n t heir cla im, t heir und er lying co mplain t is st ill Chica go ’s fa ilur e t o co mply wit h it s o wn s elfi m pos ed re gul ati on s i n approv i n g th e h osp i tal de f en da n ts’ IPD an d, as s uch , i s i n suf f i ci en t to
eva de t he a pp licat io n o f Landmarksto the present case. The contention that an ordi nan ce enacted b

y a home rule m unici pality ma y b e i nva li dated up o n ju dic ial r ev iew du e t o an alle ge d v io lat io n o f t he mun icip alit y’s o wn rule s w as sq ua r ely
re ject ed by o ur sup re me co ur t in Landmarks . The pl ai ntif fs in that case sought a decla

ration that a Chi cago ord i na nc e re sc i nd i ng the l an dm ark sta tusof a c erta i n b ui l di ng wa s i nv al i d b as ed on certai n a l l eged procedu ral shortcomi

ngs i n the pas sag e of

the ordi na nc e. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 173-7 4, 531 N .E.2d at 12 -13. Th e court af f i rmed the dism

i ssa l of p l ai ntif f s’ com plai nt. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 180, 531 N. E.2d at 15- 16. As a thresh old m atter , it stated t hat under the 1970 Ill

in ois Constitution, the ci

ty of Ch ic ago is a h

ome rule uni

t and therefore has

broad autho rity to go vern i

ts o wn aff airs: “ ‘ Exc ept asli

m i ted by thi s Sec tion , a home

rule un i t ma y ex ercise a

ny power a nd p erf orm any funct ion p er t aining t o it s go ver nment a nd affairs including, but not lim ited t o, t he pow er to re gul ate

f or th e prote cti on of th e pub l i c h

ea l th , s af ety , m oral s a n d w el f are; to li cense;to tax; an

d to in cur debt.’ ” Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 178, 531 N. E.2d at 15, quoti ng I l l . Cons

t. 1970, a rt. VII, §6(a

). The 1 97 0 I l l i

n oi s C on sti

tuti on f ur th er prov i de s th

at th e p owe rsan d f un cti on s of h om e r ul e u n i ts shal l b e construed broadly. Ill . Const. 1970, art . VII, §6(m); see Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 178,Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-11-

531 N. E. 2d a t 15. The pas sag e o f the challenge d o rd inance w as “t he pe rfo rmance of a legislat ive fun ction authorized b

y the home rule provisions of the Il

li nois Constitution.” Landmarks , 12 5 I ll. 2d at 180, 531 N.E .2d at 16. Beari ng thi s broad grant of authority in mi nd, the Landmarks court declin ed to co nsi

der whet her , a s plaint iff

s allege d, t he cit y had t ra nsgr esse d it s o wn r equ irement s in pass ing t he ordinan ce at iss ue. The court explai

ned: “ ‘T his c o ur t ca nno t han dle mat t er s w hich in e ffec t ar e a t t emp t s t o o ver ru le d ec isio ns o f a le gis la tive body based upon al

le ged fai lure to follow requi

remen ts im posed by that body it se lf. ** * W e h av e a ut ho r it y t o inva lida t e le gis lat io n a do pt ed by t he cit y co un cil o nly upo n gr ou nds t hat t he ena ct ment vio late s a p ro vision o f the Fede ra l or St at e co nst itu t ions or violates the man

date of a State o r Federal statut e.’ ” Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 179, 531 N.E.2d at 15, quot in

g Illinois Gasoline Dealers Ass’n v. City of Chicago , 119 Ill . 2d 391, 404, 519 N.E. 2d 447, 452-53 (1988), quo ting Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co. , 87 I ll. Ap p. 3d 56 9, 574, 4 10 N.E.2 d 61, 65 (1980 ). Thus , i n the ab sen

ce of an y such v i ola tion , plai ntif f s’ chal l enge to the ordi

na nc e coul d not stan d. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 179-80, 531 N.E.2d at 15-16. In this rega rd, the Landmarks court
no t ed t ha t pla int iffs h ad no t alle ge d a ny ind ep en de nt co nst it ut io na l vio lat io n by t he cit y co un cil,
such asa v i ol ati on of consti tutiona l gua ran tee s of eq ual prote cti on, proc ed

ura l due proc es s, or subs t ant ive due pr oc ess; r at her , t heir claim re st ed u po n t he allege d inco nsist ency bet wee n t he chal l enged ordi

na nc e an d the Ch i cago M uni ci pal Code, a n issue wh

i ch the c ourt could not rea

ch
. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 180, 531 N. E.2d at 16.Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-12-

In renderi ng i ts decis ion, the Landmarksco ur t re lied upo n its p rio r d ecisio n in Gasoline Dealers , which i

t found to be contro ll

in g. The Gasoline Deal ers pl ai n ti f f s ch al l en ge d th e v al i di ty
o f a fu el t ax o r din an ce , co nt en din g t ha t it s a do pt io n w as impr o pe rbe ca us e it wa s imp r o pe r ly
rem oved f rom c omm

i ttee. Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Il l . 2d at 40 3, 519 N .E.2d at 45 2. The court de cl i n ed to rev i ew th at c on ten ti on , s i n ce th e a l l eg ed f aul t con siste d m erel y of a f ai l ur e b y th e c i ty
council to foll ow i

ts own r ules. Gasoline Deal ers , 1 19 I ll. 2d a t 404 , 5 19 N .E .2 d at 452 -5 3. The
co ur t fur t he rfo un d t ha t pla int iffs h ad no t de mo nst r at ed t ha t t he o r din an ce vio lat ed t he I llino is
constituti on or an y state s tatute. Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Il l . 2d at 40 4-05, 5 19 N.E.2 d at 453 . It there f ore af f i rmed the ci

rcui t court’s g

ran t of su m mary j udgm en t in f avor of de f

endan ts. Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 405, 519 N. E.2d at 453. Th e fa ct s o f Chirikos , 87 I ll. A pp . 3d 56 9, 41 0 N
. E
. 2d 61 , wh ich is c it ed wit h app r o va l in bot h Landmarksand Gasoline Deal ers , are als o ins truct iv e i n thi s regard. The Chirikos pla int iff
sou gh t to i n v al i da te a tax i f are i n crea se am en dm en t pa ss ed b y th e c i ty of Ch i ca go, al l eg i n g th at i ts
enactm en t viola ted cer tai n re qui rem en ts an d proced ures contai ne d i n the ex i sti ng c i ty ordi na nc e. Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3d at 573-74, 410 N.E .2d at 65. P la in tif f al so clai me d that he was “ deni

ed due process of law becaus e of f ai lure of the ci ty counci l to act in a

ccordance wi

th establ is hed le gal requirem ents enacted by

the council.” Chirikos , 87 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 574, 410

N.E.2d a t 65. The court af f i rmed the dism

i ssa l of p l ai ntif f ’scom plai nt. Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3d at 580, 410 N. E.2 d a t 69 . A f ter re ci ti n g th e pri n ci pl e of l aw quoted ab ov e, th e c our

t con cl uded : “The c i

ty council was not bound by its own prev

ious ordin ances or requi

remen ts. The council

had cl ear righ t t o repeal the then

existin g ordinan ce or to am

end i t as it saw f

it.” Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3dNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-13-

at 574, 410 N.E .2d at 65. A nu mber o f su bse qu ent ca se s ha ve fo llow ed t he le ad o f Landmarks . See City of Elgin v. County of Cook , 16 9 I l l . 2d 53 , 63 , 66 0 N .E. 2d

87 5, 8 81 (1 99 5) (holdi

n g th at, ev en i f cou n ty fai le d to follow i

ts own preexi stin

g ordinan ces i n en actin g la ndf il l ordi nan ce, the la ndf il l ordi nan ce co uld not be succ essfully

challenged up on t hat gro und) ; Hanna v. City of Chicago , 331 Ill . App. 3d 295, 771 N.E.2d 13 ( 2002) (upholdi ng di sm is sal of count in

whi ch pl ai ntif f cl ai me d that Ch i cago ordi na nc e down zoni ng h i s prope rty was v oid be caus e i t fa i l ed to cons i der the f

actors
r eq ui r ed by t he Ch ica go zo nin g o r di na nc e) , o ve rrul ed o n o t he rgr o un ds by Napleton v. Village of Hinsdal e , 2 29 I ll. 2d 2 96, 309 -1 0, 891 N. E. 2d 8 39, 847 -4 8 ( 200 8) . Mo re re cent ly, in Dunlap v. Village of Schaumburg , 3 94 I ll. App. 3d 6 29, 915 N. E. 2d 8 90 ( 200 9) , p laintiff challenged t he validity o f a zo ning var iance t hat t he Village o f Scha umbur g, a ho me ru le unit , g ra nt ed t o t he de f en da nt l an dow ne rs . Sh e c l ai med tha t the va rian cewa s i nv al i d b ec au se

de f en da nts ha d n ot
made a showi ng of ha rdsh i p aswasrequi

red un der the vi l l age c ode. Dunlap , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 646, 915 N.E.2d at 904. We di sagreed, fi ndi ng that a l egi slative

body, suc

h as the v il la ge, was not re quir ed t o s t rict ly confo rm t o it s o wn st anda rd s in enact ing a zo ning o rd inance a s long as t he
re sult ing o rd inance r epr ese nt ed a ra t ional means t o a cco mplish an ot her wise leg itimat e legislat ive purpos e. Dunlap , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 646, 915 N.E .2d at 904. Defend ant s ar gue t hat , jus t as in Landmarks and i ts pro geny, t he i

nstant case co ncerns a home rule m

unicipal ity ex ercisi ng i ts home rule authority in

a legislati ve capacity, so plainti ff

s’ clai m, which is “ ‘ based upo n all

eged failure to foll

ow r equirements imposed by that body itself’ ” ( Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 179, 531 N. E.2d at 15, quot in g Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 404,Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-14-

519 N.E.2d at 452, quot in g Chirikos , 87 I ll. A pp . 3d at 57 4, 41 0 N
. E
. 2d at 65 ) , mus t ne ce ss ar ily fail. Ind eed , it is est ablished t hat t he po wer t o e nact zo ning o rd inances, suc h as t he o ne in the in stant case, fal

ls withi n the 1970 Consti

tut ion’ s broad grant of hom e rule a uthority as di

scussed in Landmarks
. Thompso n v. Cook C ounty Zonin

g Board of Appeals , 96 Ill . App. 3d 561, 569, 421 N. E. 2d 2 85, 292 (1 981 ). Tha t is, ho me ru le municipalities u nder t he 19 70 c ons t itu t ion have full aut hor ity t o z one , r at her t han being c ons t ra ined by st at e st at ut e, pr ovid ed t hat t heir zo ning does not violate constitutional standards. Ill . Const. 1970, art . VII, §6(a) ; see Dunlap , 39 4 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 64 3- 46 , 91 5 N
. E
. 2d at 90 2- 04 ( dis cu ss ing t he wid e s we ep o f co nst it ut io na l ho me r ule authority wi th reg ard to zoni

ng d ecisions)
. Plai ntif fs nev ertheles s seek to disti

ngui sh the Landmarks line o f ca se s, ar gu ing t ha t it is inappo site beca use no c ons t itu t ional issu e wa s ra ised in Landmarks . B y cont ra st , in t he pr ese nt case, plai ntif fs have alle ged a vi

olation of their due process ri

ghts under the Il

li nois and Un ited Stat es consti

tut ions . In this

vei n, plai ntif fs ci te Treadway v. City of R ockford , 24 Ill . 2d 488, 182 N.E.2d 219 (1962), in

whi ch the court stat ed:

“ It i s ob vi oustha t when a s tatute pre scri be s c erta i n s tep s a s c ond

i ti ons to the en ac tmen t of
an o r din an ce t he se st ep s mu st be su bst an t ially c o mplie d w it h, an d w e h av e fu rt he rhe ld th at w h ere a gen eral zon i n g ordi n an ce i n cl udes addi ti on al proce du ral re qui re men ts f or i ts amendment , no t incons iste nt wit h t hos e o f the st at ut e, t hese re quir ement s must also be compl ie d with.” Treadw

ay , 24 Ill . 2d at 496, 182 N. E.2d at 224, ci ting Cain v. Lyddon , 343 Il l . 217, 17 5 N.E. 39 1 (193 1). Treadw ay , a s t he inst ant cas e, dea lt w ith a c hallenge t o a city zo ning re gulat ion. TheNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-15-

plaint iff s in Treadw

aychallenge d an o rd inance p asse d by t he cit y of Ro ckfo rd chang ing t he
zo ning classificat ion o f cer t ain pr op er t y from r eside nt ial to business in or der t o a llow t he
constructi on of

a sh oppi ng c en ter on that l and. Treadw

ay , 24 Ill . 2d at 489, 182 N. E.2d at 220
. In r elevant par t , t hey alleged t hat , in ap pr oving t he o rd inance, t he cit y had failed t o fo llow t he pub l i cation req

ui rem en ts as s et f orth by state s tatute. Treadw

ay , 24 Il l . 2d at 49 4-95, 182 N.E.2d at 223
. I t is in t his c o nt ex t t ha t t he co ur t iss ue d t he ab o ve st at eme nt t ha t pla int iffs s ee k t o r ely up on . Pl ai n ti f f s c on ten d th at Treadw ayis contro ll in g in the current case. They

argue that, just as the Treadw

aypl ai n ti f f s a l l eg ed a v i ol ati on of th e state sta tute gov er n i n g th e c i ty ’s exercise of i ts zoni ng power, they h

ave al le ged a vi olation of the constitutional

due process requirem

ents whi ch govern Chi

cago’ s ex ercise of i ts zoni ng p ower. Howev er, Treadw

ayis ina pp o sit e, be ca us e it did no t invo lve t he au t ho r it y o f a h o me r ule
mun ic ipa li ty unde r the 1970 Constitution. Indeed, the Landmarks cour t distingui shes Treadw ay on thi s very ba si s. Landmarks , 12 5 I ll. 2 d a t 18 0- 81 , 53 1 N
. E
. 2d at 16
. T he o r din an ce at iss ue in Treadw aywaspas sed

i n 19 60. Treadw

ay , 2 4 I ll. 2d a t 495 , 1 82 N .E .2 d at 224 . At t hat t ime, t he ab i l i ty of m uni ci pal i tie s to zone

waspres cri

be d by , and ci rcum scri be d by , state s tatute. Landmarks , 1 25 I ll. 2d a t 180 , 5 31 N .E .2 d at 16. Any municipal zoning o rd inances t hat went bey ond the b ounds

of that li m i ted auth ority were ne ces sari l y i nv al i d. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 181. Thus, in

order t o determin

e the val idi ty of the ch

alle nged ordin

ance, the Treadw

ay court had to exam in e i ts complia

nce wi th the relev

ant authorizi

ng statute. By contrast, as has been discu ssed , t he o rd inances a t issue in Landmarks an d i n th e pre se n t ca se werepa ss ed

pu rsua n t to full home ru le aut hor ity and t her efo re not nece ssar ily t ied do wn by the st rict ur es o f an aut hor izingNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-16-

statut e. See Thompson , 96 Ill. App. 3d at 569 , 42 1 N. E. 2d at 292 ; Dunlap , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 643-46, 915 N.E. 2d at 902-04. Cain , 343 Il

l . 217, 175 N.E. 391, cite d in Treadw ay , is l ike wis e di stin

guis hab le . At iss

ue in Cain wa s a

n or di na nc e cha ngi ng the cl as si f i ca ti on of the pl ai nti f f l an dow ne r’ s prope rty f rom resi den tia l to comm erci al
. Cain , 343 Il

l . at 218, 175 N .E. at 392. The court found that, in sofar as t he r eclass ifi

cat ion wa s no t pas sed in acco rd ance wit h pr oc edu ra l req uire ments impose d by l ocal ordi na nc e, i t was i nv al i d. Cain , 343 Il

l . at 222, 175 N .E. at 393. Ho wever, l ike Treadw

ay , Cain t ake s plac e befo re t he gr ant of ho me ru le aut hor ity co nt ained in t he 19 70 c ons t itu t ion. The Landmarks cour t specifi

call y distingui shes Cain upon th i s groun d. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 181, 531 N.E.2d at 16. It explai ns that “the n

onuniform

applic ation of the m

unici pality ’s own pr oc edu ra l pro visions [ in Cain ] w as inco nsist ent wit h t he Ge ner al Assembly’s intent in delega t ing li mi ted zonin g authority to mun

ic ipa li ties i n the then-exi stin

g zoni ng act.” Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 182, 531 N.E .2d at 16. By contrast, since zonin g authority is not thus li

mi ted by the General Assembly any m

or e, t he st rict ur es d esc ribed in Cain do no t ap ply t o pr es en t - da y ho me r ule
m uni ci pal i tie s i n Il l i noi s. Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 179-81, 531 N.E.2d at 15-16. We theref ore fi nd pl ai ntif fs ’ di stin ctions to be unav

ai li ng an d the Landmarks line to be contro ll in g in this case. The IPD ordin

ance en acted by the ci ty counci l i n thi s case is not rendered unconsti tut iona l s im ply because this mun ic ipa li ty, a hom e rule un it, vi olated i ts own self

-im posed ordi na nc es i n enacti ng th e IPD ordi

na nc e. Landmarks and Gasoline Deal ers bot h st and fo r t he propo si tion that the mere f

ai lure of a hom e rule m unici pality to fol low i ts own self

-im posed regul ati ons i n enacti ng a n ordi na nc e i s n ot, in and of i tself , a con sti tution al vi ola tion
. Landmarks ,Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-17-

125 Ill. 2d at 179 , 5 31 N .E .2 d at 15 ( not ing t hat it d id no t “mean[] t o imply tha t any co nst it ut io na l vio lat io n is r ea dily a pp ar en t ” me r ely fr o m t he fac t t ha t t he cit y co un cil a lleg ed ly departed from the procedural requirem ents i n i ts mun ic ipa l c ode in passi ng the ch alle nged
or dinance); Gasoline Deal ers , 1 19 Ill. 2d at 40 4- 05 , 5 19 N. E. 2d at 45 3 ( finding t hat “pla int iffs have no t demo nst ra t ed t hat t he vehicle fue l tax o rd inance vio late s t he I lli nois C ons t itu t ion” des pi te plai ntif f s’ ass erti on tha

t the ordi na nc e was i m properl y adopted u

nde r ci ty c ounc i l rules). We find furt her sup po rt for t his po sitio n in Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3d at 574, 410 N.E .2d at 65. As di scussed above, the Chirikoscourt rejected plai ntif f’ s contention that he was deni ed due proce ss of l aw b ec au se th e c i ty cou n ci l ’s tax i f are i n crea se am en dm en t v i ol ate d th

e te rm s of a c i ty ordi na nc e. Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3d at 574, 410 N.E .2d at 65. I n doin g so, t he Chirikos court st at ed, “This co ur t canno t handle mat t er s which in effect ar e a t t emp t s t o o ver ru le d ec isio ns o f a le gis la tive body based upon al

le ged fai lure to follow requi

remen ts im posed by that body i

tself .” (Em phasi s ad ded.) Chirikos , 87 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 574, 410

N.E.2d a t 65. In other words , the m ere fact t hat t he cit y cou ncil mi ght have failed t o fo llow it s o wn se lf-impose d r equ irement s in enact ing the tax i f are i ncreas e am

endm en t di d not consti

tute a vi ola

tion of p l ai ntif f ’sdue process

ri ghts
. Simil ar ly, the Chicag o c ity co uncil’s allege d failure t o fo llow t he t er ms of it s o wn zo ning ord in ance i n approving the hospital def endants’ IPD do es not co nstitute a violation of plain tiff s’ due process righ

ts in the in stant case. Thi s concl

usion fl ows from the b

road grant o f authori

ty gi ven to home rule m unici palities with regard to zonin

g. We note that counsel f or plai ntif fs conceded at oral argum

ent that, subje ct t o p ro per pr oc edu ra l due p ro ces s re quir ement s, t he cit y has a r ight t o a mend it s o wn zo ningNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-18-

o rd inanc e a nd, if it c ho se , w o uld hav e fr ee re in t o de let e a ny co nflict ing p ro visio ns o f a preex i sti ng ord i na nc e. Otherwise, n

o repea l i ng or a mendatory

l egislati on woul

d ever b e poss i

bl e. It was also noted at or al

argumen t t hat, even i

f pl ai ntif fs were to pr evai

l i n the i nstant case, not hing wo uld p re vent t he cit y cou ncil from amend ing t he zo ning o rd inance t o r emove t he
co nflic t s fo un d b y t he t r ial c o ur t an d t he n r ee na ct ing t he ch alle ng ed I PD in it s e nt ire t y. S uc h is the power of a home rul

e m unici pality where zoni

ng i s concerned. See Chirikos , 87 Ill . App. 3d at 5 74, 410

N.E .2d at 6 5 (“Th e c i

ty cou nc i l wa s n ot bou nd by i ts ow n prev i ousordi na nc esor
r eq uir eme nt s. T he co un cil ha d c lea rr igh t t o r ep ea l t he t he n e xist ing o r din an ce o rt o ame nd it as it
saw f i t”). Plai ntif fs nev ertheles s ci

te American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago , 209 Ill . App. 3d 96, 110, 568 N.E. 2d 25, 34 (1990), for t he proposition tha t “the Landmarks de cisi

on does not deprive the court of its power to r evi ew the val

idi ty of the zoni

ng act under constitutional

standards,” contendi

ng that this

la nguage en

abl es revi ew of thei r constitutional

due pr oc ess c laim i

n t he inst ant cas e. The plaint iff in American National Bank ch al l en ge d the c i ty of Ch ica go ’s ap pr o va l o f a p lan ne d d ev elo pme nt , cla iming t ha t t he cit y had faile d t o co nsid er ce rt ain guid elines du ring t he r ezo ning pr oc ess a s re quir ed by t he municipal co de, and fu rt her claiming that the pas sag e of

the ordi na nc e con sti tuted a v i ola tion of i ts cons tituti onal due process

ri ghts
. American National Bank, 20 9 I l l . A pp . 3d at 1 09 -1 0, 5 68 N. E.2 d a

t 33 -3 4. T

h e c our t f oun d th at, in any even t, plai ntif f h ad not established that the ci ty actually

fai le d to consider the guidel in es at i ssue, so i ts cl ai m i n that rega

rd was wi thout warra

nt. American National Bank, 209 Ill . App. 3d at 11 1, 56 8 N .E .2 d a t 34 -3 5. It fur t her re jec t ed pla int iff’s d ue pr o ce ss cla im, find ing t hat pla int iffNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-19-

had b een af

forded adequate notice an d oppor tunity

to be h eard regardin

g the pla nne d developmen

t. American National Bank, 209 Ill . App. 3d at 113-14, 568 N.E .2d at 36. To th e exten t th at American National Bank sta n dsf or th e prop osi ti on th at th e c i ty council ’s breach of the m

unicipal code, without mor e, wo uld be an unconstitut ional

due pro cess violation, we m

ust reject that propo si

tion, for al

l the reas ons di scussed above. See Landmarks , 125 Ill. 2d a t 1 79, 531 N.E .2d at 15- 6; Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 404-05, 519 N.E.2d at 452 -53 ; Chirikos , 8 7 I ll. App. 3d a t 574 , 4 10 N .E .2 d at 65. Ho weve r, we a lso no t e t hat t he American National Bank pla in tif f al le ged procedural due process v iolations, such

as lack of notice
an d oppor tun i ty to b e h ea rd , w h i ch wereen ti re l y se pa ra te f rom th e c l ai med f ai l ur e of th e c i ty council to follow i

ts own requirem

ents i n en actin g the chal le nged ordin

ance. Indee d, no such alle gations are curren

tly bef ore us in this appeal , although pl

ai ntif fs have rais ed such procedural due process

al l egati ons i n the porti on of

the f i rst cas e wh

i ch i s n ot curren tly be f ore us on appe al .) Such i nde pen den t cl ai m s rem ai n c ogni zab l e un der Landmarks and i

ts progeny. See Landmarks , 125 Ill. 2d a t 1 80, 531 N.E .2d at 16; Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 404-05, 519 N.E.2d at 452-53. Thu s, in o rd er t o p re vail in the inst ant cas e, plaint iff s wo uld have t o d emons t ra t e t hat t he ci ty counci l’ s actions contain ed an i ndepen dent constitutional

violation – that i s, a constitutional vi ol ati on th at c oul d b e i nv oke d re ga rdl es s of the su bj ec t ordi na nc e’ s rel ati ons hi p to a ny pri or or coll ateral ordi na nc es. Landmarks , 12 5 Ill. 2d at 179 -80 , 53 1 N. E. 2d at 15- 16; Chirikos , 87 I ll. App . 3 d a t 57 4, 41 0 N .E .2 d a t 65 . I n o rd er t o es t ablish su ch a co nst it ut io nal vio lat io n, pla int iffs would have to show t hat the city council ’s actions i n enactin g the IPD ord in

ance fai led to passNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

2 We note in passi

ng that, in the po rtion of their fi

rst act ion that is presently bef ore u s, -20- rational basis revi ew, under whi

ch l egi slative action wi ll be uph el d as long as i

t bears a rational relati onsh i p to a l egi tim ate legislati

ve purpos e an

d i s n ot arbi trary or unre ason

ab l e. Napleton , 229 Ill . 2d at 307-09, 891 N.E.2d at 847-48 (zonin g am endm ent chal le nged on due process grounds was properly

reviewed under the rati onal basis test); see La Salle National Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook , 1 2 I ll. 2d 4 0, 46, 145 N. E. 2d 6 5, 68 ( 195 7) (“it is primar ily t he pr ovince of t he
mun icip al b o dy t o de t er mine t he us e a nd pu r po se t o wh ich pr o pe rt y may be de vo t ed , an d it is nei ther the provin

ce nor the duty of the courts to in terfere wi th the dis cretion wi

th which such bo di es ar e v es t ed un les s t he leg isla t ive ac t io n o f t he munic ip alit y is s ho wn t o be ar bit r ar y, capr icious o r unr elate d t o t he public health, safet y and morals”) ; City of Aurora v. Burns , 31 9 I ll. 84 , 94 (1 92 5) (z oni

n g c l as si f i ca ti on s “ wh en exercise d r ea son

ab l y , m ay b ea r a ra ti on al re l ati on to the heal th, morals , safety

and gen eral we lf are of the comm

uni ty”). Thi s i s a broadl

y de feren tial sta nd ard . A s ou

r s upr em e c ourt h assta ted i n a ppl y i ng thi s stan da rd, “ W he the r a s tatute i s wi se or un wi se , an d w he the r i t i s th e b es t mea

ns to ac hi eve the des i

red res ul ts, a re a mong the matters f or the l eg i sl atu re a nd not th e c ourts . A

dif f ere nc e of opi ni on i s i ns uf f i ci en t to br i ng the cl as si f i ca ti on to a court’s att ention.” People v. Shep hard , 152 Il l . 2d 489 , 503, 60 5 N.E.2d 518, 52 5 (199 2). Moreover, it is we ll

establ is hed that m

unici pal ordinan ces, l ike statut es, “are presum

ed
co nst itu t ional, and t he bur den o f rebu t t ing t hat pr esu mpt ion is o n t he pa rt y challenging t he val idi ty of the statut e to clearl

y de mons trat e a constitutional

violation.” Napleton , 229 Ill . 2d at 306, 891 N.E.2d at 846; see La Salle , 12 Il l . 2d at 46 , 145 N .E.2d at 68 (zoni ng ord i na nc es a re presum pti ve l y va l i d). 2Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

pla in tif fs are bri ngi ng a f aci al chal le nge to the IPD o rdin

ance, n ot a chal le nge to the or din

ance as sp ec ifica lly ap plie d t o t he St
. Jo se ph Ca mpu s, be ca us e t he y se ek t o ha ve t he o r din an ce vo ide d in its e nt iret y. As t hey are bringing a facial challenge , p laintiffs bear t he bur den o f demo nst ra t ing that the re i s n o set of ci rcum stan ces und er wh i ch the ordi na nc e woul d be va l i d. Napleton , 22 9 I ll. 2d a t 306 , 8 91 N .E .2 d at 846 . Ac co rd ingly, the fact or s set ou t by the c ou rt in La Salle , 12 Ill . 2d at 46, 145 N. E. 2d a t 68, for asse ssing t he validity o f a zo ning o rd inance in light o f the gain t o t he publ i c w he n m ea su red ag ai ns t the bu rde ns i m pos ed upon the i nd i vi dua l prop erty own er, do n ot appl y , be caus e such

f actors a re ci rcum stan ce-de pen den t. Napleton , 229 Ill . 2d at 318, 891 N.E.2d at 852. Nor do pla in tif fs argue their appl

ic ation to t he i

nstant case. -21- Pla int iffs a r e u nable t o mee t t his h igh st an da r d. At o r al a r gu men t , t he pa rt ies we r e in ap pa r en t co nse nsu s t ha t t he pu r po se o f t he I PD wa s t o en su r e t ha t t he ho sp it al d efe nd an t s w o uld
re main in the neighbo rho od t o c ont inue pr ovid ing healt h car e t o r eside nt s. P laintiffs canno t and do not assert that t he provi sion of heal th care to t he com

mun ity is not a legi tim ate governme

ntal go al. N or do t hey asse rt t hat allowing t he ho spit al defend ant s t o c ar ry o ut t heir d evelo pment pla ns is not rationally

related to achi evi

ng that goal. Rather, plai ntif fs ’ chal le nge to the or din

ance at issue, t hou gh dr esse d in co nst itu t ional langu age , hinge s exc lusively on t heir allega t ion t hat t he city v iolated its own self

-im posed r equirem

ents in approvin

g the o rdinan

ce. Their entire case rise s or fal

ls by their cl ai m of in consi stency

between the two; wi

thout any such i nconsistency, they have no case at all. A

nd, as di scussed, such

in consi stency

is not a per seconsti

tutiona l vi ol ati on und er Landmarks and Gasoline Deal ers . Landmarks , 125 Ill . 2d at 179, 531 N. E.2d at 15- 16; Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 404-05, 519 N.E.2d at 452-53.Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-22-

Pl ai n ti f f s’ n ex t m aj or a rgum en t i s th at Landmarks an

d i ts p roge ny are di sti ng ui sh ab l e on grounds that plai

ntif fs in those cases di

d not inv oke the due process guarantee in section 11-13- 25(b ) of th

e Il l i noi s Mu ni ci pal Code. (In

deed , Landmarks was deci ded well b efore the 2006 enactm ent of section 11-13-25.) By contrast, plai ntif fs in the present case h

ave cl ai me d that
en ac tmen t of the IPDordi na nc e v i ol ate s th e terms of se cti on 1 1-1 3-2 5(b). H oweve r, that s ec ti on does not change any

thing i n our analy

sis of this case. Section 11-13- 25 reads: “(a) Any special us e, var iance, re zo ning, o r o t her amendment t o a zo ning ordi na nc e adopte d by

the corp orate

au thor i ti esof an y m un i ci pal i ty , home ru

l e or non- home r ule, shall be subjec t t o d e no vo ju dicial review as a legislat ive dec ision, regardles s of wh

ether the process of i

ts adopt ion i

s consi dered adm

in is trat iv e for other purposes. *** (b ) Th e p ri nc i plesof su bs tan ti ve an d pr oce dur al due proc es s a ppl y at al l stage s of the decision-makin

g and review of al

l zoni ng decisi ons.” 65 I LCS 5/11-13 -25 (West 2006)
. Plaint iff s ar gue t hat , by pa ssing t he I PD or dinance in violat ion o f ot her pr ovisio ns o f the Ch ica go Zo ning Or din an ce , t he cit y has de nie d t he m t he du e p r o ce ss pr o t ec t io ns g ua r an t ee d in section 11-13-25(b). Plai ntif fs further i mpl y i n thei r bri ef that si

nce zoni ng decisions are “s

ubj ect t o d e no vo ju dicial review ” und er sec t ion 1 1- 13- 25( a) , w e ar e t o a cco rd no d efer ence t o t he de cis io n o f t he Ch ica go cit y co un cil in c o nd uc t ing o ur an alys is o f t he ir c laim. How ever, such

a v i ew repres en ts a m i su nd ers tan di ng of the sc opean d pu rpos e of se cti on 11-1 3-25 . This sect ion must be underst oo d as an at tempt to null if y the eff ect of the co urt ’sNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-23-

dec ision in People

ex rel . Klaere n v. Villag

e of Lisle , 202 Il

l . 2d 164 , 781 N .E.2d 223 (2002 ), wh ich he ld t ha t a mu nic ipa lit y wa s a ct ing in a n a dmin ist r at ive ( o t he rwis e k no wn as a q ua sij udi cial ) capa ci ty ra ther th an i n a l egislati ve capa ci ty i n ru l i ng on a sp eci al use perm i t appl i cation. Dunlap , 39 4 Ill. App. 3d at 639 -40 , 91 5 N. E. 2d at 899 ; Millineum Mai ntenance Manageme

nt, Inc. v. County of Lake , 38 4 Il l . A pp. 3d 6 38, 647 , 89 4 N .E.2 d 84 5, 8 55 (200 8). Th e di sti nc ti on is signifi cant becaus e the two t ype s of decisions are subj ect to dif feren t standards of revi

ew: Legi slative

deci sions are subj ect only to rational

basi s revi ew as l ong as they

do not im

pli cate a f un da men tal con sti tuti on al ri gh t ( Millineum , 384 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 642-43, 8 94 N.E.2 d at 852 ), whi l e adm

i nistrati ve deci sions a re su bj ect to hei

ghtene d scruti

ny. City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach F

ull Gospel Church &

Ministries, Inc. , 196 Ill . 2d 1, 13, 749 N.E .2d 916, 92 4 ( 20 01 )
. Sp ec ifica lly, w he n a n a dmin ist r at ive rulin g o n a zo ning pe rmit ap plic at io n is
r ev iew ed , t he de cis io n “ma y be r ev iew ed t o de t er mine w he t he rt he de cis io n w as mad e in compl ia nce wi th any criteri a lis

ted in the zoni ng ordin ance.” Living Word , 196 Ill . 2d at 13, 749 N.E.2d at 925. By contrast, sin ce l egi slative

deci sions are revi

ewed f or arbitrarin

ess, such
com pli ance is n

ot dis posi tiv e, but merel

y a f actor to be c onsi

dered
. Living Word , 196 Ill . 2d at 13, 749 N.E.2d at 925. As ment ioned , t he co ur t in Klaeren rule d t ha t a mu nic ipa lit y gr an t ing a s pe cia l us e p er mit
wastaki ng a dm i nistrati ve action an d theref ore sub j ect to a he i ghtene d lev el

of re vi ew. Klaeren , 202 Ill. 2d at 183 , 7 81 N .E .2 d at 234 . T he legislat ur e exp re ssly resp ond ed t o t his dec ision by class i f y i ng e very adopted zoni

ng a mendm en t as a l egislati ve act rather tha

n a n adm i nistrati ve one. Dunlap , 39 4 Ill. App. 3d at 641 , 91 5 N. E. 2d at 900 -01 ; Millineum , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 647, 894Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

3 Ind eed , it has be en su gge st ed t hat if sect ion 1 1- 13- 25 w er e inte rp re t ed a s re quir ing wh o lly de novo r ev iew o f leg isla t ive zo ning de cis io ns, su ch r ev iew wo uld be an impe rmiss ible
assu mpt ion o f execu t ive po wer by the jud iciary and t he se ct ion wo uld t her efo re be
unc onsti tution al
. Millineum , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 652, 894 N.E .2d at 860. -24- N.E.2d at 856. That is, the ph rase “de n ovo” in section 11-13-25 can

not be read in

is olation, b

ut
mus t be understood in i

ts context – “ ‘de novo revi ew as a legislative decision ’ ” – whi ch pr es cr ibe s t he st an da r d o f r ev iew as t ha t wh ich is a pp lica ble t o leg isla t ive de cis io ns. ( E mph as is in origi na l .) Millineum , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 652, 894 N.E .2d at 860. 3 Conse quen tly , the IPD ordi n an ce re mai n s s ub j ect to ra ti on al b as i s rev i ew , de sp i te th e f act th at p l ai

n ti f f s h av e b rough t a cl ai m un der section 11-13-25. For the reasons di scussed above, it passes mus ter under that standard. Pla int iffs fur t her ra ise t he c o nt ent io n t hat allo wing a mu nicip alit y t o vio lat e it s o wn s elfi m pos ed re gul ati on s is c on tra ry to pu b l i c p oli cy

b ec au se i t up sets th

e ex pe cta ti on s of prope rty
owne rs an d poten tia l l y di srup ts the protecti ons provi ded b y the Chi cago Z oni ng Ordi na nc e. However, as noted earli

er, there is n

o dispute that the city

of Chi cago retains f

ull power t o repeal or amend the zonin

g ordinan ce that was alle gedl

y c ontravened i

n the i nstant case, wh

ic h m akes pla in tif fs ’ protest in

this regard lose m

uch of i ts force. Moreo ver, i

n an y c ase, “[t]hi s court may
no t ac t t o inva lida t e le gis lat io n simp ly up o n c o nsid er at io ns o f wh at lit iga nt s, at t o rne ys o rt his court ma y regard as

the publ ic wel fare.” Chirikos , 87 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 574, 410

N.E.2d a t 65. Rat her , w e ar e bo und t o fo llow t he pr inciples ar t iculat ed by o ur sup re me co ur t in Landmarksand Gasoline Deal ers . See Landmarks , 12 5 Ill. 2d at 179 , 53 1 N. E. 2d at 15- 16; Gasoline Deal ers ,Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-25-

119 Ill . 2d at 404, 519 N. E.2d at 452- 53. Pla int iffs fina lly cit e a nu mbe ro f o ut - o f- st at e c as es wh ich , t he y ar gu e, su pp o rt t he ir contention that a m

unici pality ’s f ai lure to follow sel

f-i mposed regul

ations i n en actin g an ordin

ance is , in itsel f, suf fi ci ent grounds to inva

li date that o rdin

ance. However, a num

ber of the cas es they rais e are di stin

guis hab le
. Fo r inst ance , in Miller v. City of Albuquerque , 89 N.M . 503, 55 4 P.2d 6 65 (19 76), peti tion er app l i ed to ha

ve a parc el of h i s land rezon

ed f rom R -1 (si ngl e-f am i l y resi den tia l) to R-3 (mult ifami

ly resident ial). T he cit y’s zo ning co mmi ssio n subs equ ent ly i

nitiat ed it s o wn zo ne chan ge request to rezone the subj ect proper ty to SU-1 (special use f or plann ed residentia

l developmen

t), whi ch wasmore res trictiv

e tha n the origi

na l R-1. Miller , 89 N.M. at 504, 554 P.2d at 666. In doin

g so, t he com

mi ssion was knowi

ngl y a cting b ey ond the bounds of

its own authority and wi thout the c oncu

rren ce of an y of the landowners w

hose property i ntere sts we

re i nv olv ed. Miller , 89N. M. at 5 06 , 55 4 P .2d at 6 68 . N ev

er th el es s, th e c om

m i ss i on proce eded

to approv e i ts own r eque st to cha

nge the c l ass i f

i cation to SU-1. Miller , 89 N.M. at 504, 554 P.2d at 66 6. T he co ur t fo un d t ha t pe t it io ne r ’s du e p r o ce ss r igh t s w er e v io lat ed , st at ing t ha t in by passi ng i ts own rules, the com

mi ssion “den

ie d petitioner, i

n vi olation of the requirem

ents of due process, a mean

in gful and i mpa rtial heari ng on hi s properly subm itted zone chan

ge applic ation.” Miller , 89 N.M . at 506, 5 54 P.2d at 668. Th

us, Miller was not pr emised so lely on t he zo ning
co mmi ssio n’s failure t o fo llow it s o wn se lf-impose d r equ irement s, bu t ra t her on a n indepe ndent procedu ral due process

clai m , na mel y , the f ail ure to gi ve peti tion er a m ean i ngf ul ri ght to be

he ard. Landmarks does not foreclose such i ndependent pro cedural due pro cess clai ms ( Landmarks , 125Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-26-

Ill . 2d at 1 80 ( sta

ti ng tha t plai nti f f “has n ot con ten de d that the ord

i na nc e w asen

ac ted i n v i ol ati on of consti tut iona l gua rantees of *** procedural due process”)), yet pla

in tif fs have not raised suc

h
an ind ep en de nt cla im in t he po rt io ns o f t he ir a ct io ns c ur r en t ly befo r e u s o n app ea l. A simi lar d istinct ion ar ises in McArthur v. Zabka , 177 C olo. 33 7, 494 P .2d 89 ( 1972) , al so cited by

pla in tif fs , where the owners of property recen tly ann exed b y the ci ty of Greel

ey chal le nged the v

alidi ty of the zoni

ng cl assifi cation i mposed upon thei

r lan d, all egi ng procedural de f i ci en ci esi n i ts adopti on. Un der th e c i ty ch arte r, the re l evan

t proc ed ura l req ui rem en ts f or i m pos i n g a zon i n g c l as si f i ca ti on wereas f oll ows : th e p l an n i n g c om m i ss i on wou l d sub m i t a pr op os al, a fte r w hich the city co uncil was re quir ed t o ho ld a pu blic hearing o n t he pr op os al and then acc ept i t, rej ect i t, or send i

t back to the com

m i ssi on f or fu rther s tudy
. McArthur , 17 7 C ol o. at 3 42 -4 3, 4 94P.2 d a

t 92 . W h at actual l y h appen ed

wa s th i s: af ter th e c om m i ss i on su b m i tted i ts pr op os al and a public hea ring w as he ld o n t hat spe cific pro po sal, t he cit y cou ncil reject ed it and then sub sti tuted i ts own, a ppare ntl y more res trictiv

e, proposa

l on i ts own i ni tia tiv e. McArthur , 177 Colo. at 342, 494 P. 2d at 91. The city council then

approved its own sub stituted pro posal wi thout ever hold

i ng a pub l i c hold

i ng on that propos al
. McArthur , 177 Colo. at 342, 494 P.2d at 91. The court f

ound th at thi s de f i ciency wasf atal to the ordi

na nc e. McArthur , 177 Colo. at 346, 494 P.2 d a t 93. In ren deri ng thi s dec i si on, the cou rt f oun d i t si gn i f i ca nt th at, i n f ai l i ng to f ol l ow its o wn pr oc edu ra l req uire ments , t he cit y depr ived plaint iff s o f the op po rt unit y to pr ove t hat t he city’ s fi nal pro posal would not be appr opr iate for their lan d or to pro ve that a co mpromise between the com

mi ssion’s origi

nal propo sal and the ci

ty’s f in al propo sal would ha ve b een f eas i bl e. McArthur , 1 77 C olo . a t 344 -4 5, 494 P. 2d a t 93. Thu s, a s in Miller , the c i ty ’s f ai l ur e toNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-27-

follow sel f-i mposed regul

ations was

not t he sole grounds of seeki ng rel ie f b ut, rat her, was al

le ged in c o nju nc t io n w it h vio lat io ns o f pr o ce du r al d ue pr o ce ss t ha t r es ult ed t he r efr o m. Plai ntif fs addi tional ly ci te Udell v. Haas , 21 N.Y.2d 463, 469, 235 N.E.2d 897, 900, 288 N. Y. S. 2d 88 0, 89 3 ( 19 68 ) , wh er e a zo ning ame nd men t wa s s t ruc k d o wn fo rno t be ing mad e “ in
ac co rd anc e w it h a c o mpr ehe nsive pla n” a s r eq uir ed by villag e la w. Th is r eq uir eme nt o f a comprehe nsi ve pl an, stated the court , was part of the “f undam ental conception of zonin

g” in stitut ed under the belief that “consideration m ust be given

to the needs of the communi ty as a whole .” Udell , 2 1 N. Y. 2d a t 469 , 2 35 N .E .2 d at 900 , 2 88 N .Y .S .2 d at 893 . T hus, mor e t han a
mer e t ra nsg re ss io n o f village st and ar ds wa s a t st ak e; t he fa ilur e t o ac t und er t he a us pic es o f a
co mpre hensive p lan was at od ds w ith t he who le co ncep t ion o f zo ning und er New Yo rk law. As wit h t he pr eviou s t wo cas es, mor e wa s at st ake in Udell tha n a mere de vi ati on f rom the l etter of self-i mposed regul

ations, whi

ch is all that plai

ntif fs have brought bef

ore us in the in stant appeal as a grounds for i

nva li dation of the IPD ordin

ance. Moreover, i

n a ny ev en t, case s f rom f oreign juri sdi

cti ons a re not bi ndi ng u pon us . Mikrut v. First Bank o

f Oak Park , 35 9 I l l . A

pp . 3d 37 , 58 , 83 2 N .E. 2d

37 6, 3 92 (2 00 5) . Th

eref ore , to t he ex t en t t ha t t he o ut - o f- st at e c as es cit ed by p laint iffs a r e in co nsis t en t wit h t he pr ec ed en t laid down by our supreme court o n thi s i ssue (see City of Elgin , 169 Ill . 2d at 63, 660 N. E.2d at 881; Landmarks , 12 5 Ill. 2d at 179 , 53 1 N. E. 2d at 15- 16; Gasoline Deal ers , 119 Ill . 2d at 404-05, 519 N. E
. 2d at 45 2- 53 ) , we ca nno t fo llo w t he m. A s w e h ave f oun d that a ny i nc ons i stenc

y be twe en the term s of the IPDan d the terms of the Chi cago zonin

g ordinan ce would n

ot , in any even t, be grounds for in

val ida ting the IPD, weNos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-28-

need n ot reach the al

ternate gro und that defen dants urge i

n support of the judgm

ent bel ow, nam el y, that the IPD is

not actuall

y a t o dds wi th the Chi cago zonin

g ordinan ce. Furthermore, our finding here is dispo sitive o f bot h of p laintiffs’ app eals, beca use bot h ar e pr emised u po n t he cl ai me d faci al in val idi ty of the IPD ordin

ance. Accordin gly , for the foregoin

g reasons, the j udgme

nts of the trial

court are aff

irm ed. Af fi rmed. CAHILL , P.J., and R.E. GORDON, J., co ncur .Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-29- REPORTER O F DECISIO NS - ILLINOI S APP ELLATE COURT

(Front S heet to be Attached to Each Case) Pleas e us e t he f oll owi ng f orm Co ndo mini

um Asso ciat ion o f Commo nwea lth P laza, an I lli nois N ot -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion; Suhail Al Chalabi ; Vi

rgini a M. Harding; and Darren Moss, Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, v. Th e C i ty of Ch i cago, a Mu ni ci pal Corp orati

on;the Ch i cago Pl an Com m i ss i on of the Ci ty of Ch i ca go; Lor i T. H ea l ey , C om m i ss i on er , D ep ar

tmen t Of Pl an n i n g a n d D ev el opm en t; Re su rr ec t io n H ea lt h C ar e, an I llino is N o t - Fo r - Pr o fit Co r po r at io n; a nd Sa int Jo se ph Ho sp it al, an I lli nois N ot -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion;

Defendan ts-Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________________ Co ndo mini

um Asso ciat ion o f Commo nwea lth P laza, an I lli nois N ot -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion; Suhail Al Chalabi ; Vi

rgini a M. Harding; and Darren Moss, Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, v. The Chicag o P lan Co mmi ssio n of t he Cit y of Chicag o, Linda S ear l, Vice Chairman a nd Act ing Chairman; L or i T. H ealey, S ecr et ar y, and Co mmi ssio ner of t he De par t ment o f Planning and Development; Al

derman W

il li am J.P. Banks, Alderman Edward M. Burk e, All ison S. Davi s, Mayo r Richa rd M. D aley, Le on D . Finney, Jr. , D or is B. H olleb, Car ole B ro wn, Amrish K. Mah aj an , George

W. Mi gal

a, Al derm an Burton F . Natarus , John

H. Nel son, Nancy

A. Pa cher, Al derman Mary An n Sm ith, A lde rman Bernard L. Stone, and Al derman Regner “ Ray ” Suarez, Me mbe r s o f t he Co mmiss io n; R es ur r ec t io n H ea lt h C ar e, an I llino is N o t - Fo r - Pr o fit Co rp or at ion; S aint J os eph H os pit al, a n Illinois No t -Fo r- Pr ofit Co rp or at ion;

Defendan ts-Appellees. Doc ke t No. COURT Opin ion F il ed No. 1- 08- 231 8 & 1 -0 9- 030 6 co ns . Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rst District, SIXTH

Di vi si on March 5, 2010 (Gi ve month, d ay and y ear)
JUSTICES JUSTICE JO SEPH GORDO N DELIVEREDTHE OPINION OF THE COURT: Cah i l l , P.J., an

d R.E. Gord

on, J. , conc

ur.Nos. 0 8-2318 & 09- 0306 co ns.

-30- APP EAL fr om t he Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Cook County; the Hon___ Judge Presidin

g. Lower Court and Tri al Judge(s ) in

form i ndi cated i n m argi n: Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. The Hon. Sophi

a Hal l , Judge Presidin

g.

APPELL ANTS: John Doe, of Ch

ic ago Indica

te if attorn ey repres en ts A PPE LL A NTS or A

PPE LLEES a

nd i nc l ude attorn ey s of counsel . Indic ate the word NONE if n ot represented. APPELLA

NTS: Reuben

L. Hedl und an d Sarah J. Isaacson, Hedl

und & Ha nley , LLC, 77 West Wa cker Driv e, Suite 4800, Chi

cago, Illin ois 60601-1664 For APPELLEES, Sm i th a nd Sm i th of Chi cago APPELL EES (Ci ty of Chi cago, Chi cago Plan C omm

i ssi on, and Lori T. Healey

): Mara S. Georges, Benna R

uth Solomon, My

riam Zreczny Kasper, an

d Jenn if er Erickson Ba

ak, 30 N. LaSal le St., Suite 800, Chi

cago, Illin ois 60602 APP ELL EE S ( Resu rr ect ion He alth C ar e and St . Jo sep h Ho spit al): Will iam J. Mc Kenna a nd Be nja min B. Fo lso m, Fo ley & L ar dn er , LL P, 32 1 N
. Cla rk S t . , Su it e 2 80 0, Ch ica go , I llino is 60654 Ad d attorney

s f or 3rd pa rty appe l l an ts a nd /or appell ees.