0001
 1   
 2               CTA PUBLIC HEARING
 3         WILSON STATION AND SECTION 106
 4   OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
 5              567 West Lake Street
 6            2nd Floor, Board Offices
 7            Chicago Transit Authority
 8                August 9th, 2013
 9                   1:00 p.m.
10   
11   
12   
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
0002
 1                MR. WILSON:  Welcome, everybody.  My
 2   name is Jeff Wilson.  I am with the CTA Government
 3   and Community Relations Department.  I would like
 4   to thank you for coming down here to take part in
 5   this public meeting.
 6                     As you know, this public meeting
 7   is intended to discuss and cover the Section 106
 8   process of the National Historic Preservation Act,
 9   which is in conjunction with the Wilson Red Line
10   Transfer Station.  So I would like to do
11   introductions since we are having such a small
12   meeting today.  If we could start probably with
13   the Alderman in the back of the room -- front of
14   the room, rather.
15                ALDERMAN CAPPLEMAN:  Alderman
16   Cappleman, 46th Ward.
17                MS. ANDERSON:  Cindi Anderson,
18   Uptown Chicago Commission.
19                MR. NAKAI:  Gary Nakai, the Buddhist
20   Temple of Chicago.
21                MR. TANGORA:  Martin Tangora, Uptown
22   Historical Society.
23                MR. ASSAM:  Mark Assam with the
24   Federal Transit Administration.
0003
 1                MR. ARKELL:  Reggie Arkell,
 2   A-R-K-E-L-L, FTA.
 3                MR. HANDS:  Steve Hands, CTA.
 4                MR. WILSON:  I would like to note
 5   there is a court reporter that's in the room, and
 6   she is really going to need people to speak up so
 7   that she can understand your name.
 8                MS. LITTRELL:  Joanna Littrell,
 9   Chicago Transit Partners.
10                MS. IVES:  Lisa Ives with AECOM.
11                MS. MEISER:  Trina Meiser with
12   AECOM.
13                MS. FRATINARDO:  Marlise Fratinardo
14   with CTA.
15                MR. AMBRY:  Tom Ambry, Chicago
16   Transit Partners.
17                MR. WILLIAMS:  Matthew Williams,
18   Chicago Transit Authority.
19                MR. TITZER:  John Titzer, CTA.
20                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Alyssa
21   Berman-Cutler, Uptown United.
22                MR. ROBERTS:  Brian Roberts, CDOT.
23                MR. KRUEGER:  Mike Krueger, owner of
24   the Berry building.
0004
 1                MR. CASTELLINO:  Mike Castellino,
 2   attorney for Mr. Krueger.
 3                MR. LAWLOR:  Jack Lawlor with the
 4   Dentons Law Firm, attorney for Matt, who has just
 5   arrived.
 6                MR. DENNY:  Hi, folks.  Sorry I'm
 7   late.  Matt Denny, 4656 North Clifton, Uptown
 8   Recording.
 9                MS. DELGADO:  Eva Dina Delgado,
10   Government and Community Relations with the CTA.
11                MR. GISMONDI:  Donald Gismondi with
12   Chicago Transit Authority.
13                MS. FEDAK:  Laura Fedak, CTA grants.
14                MR. CONNELLY:  Mike Connelly with
15   CTA planning.
16                MS. COMITO:  Cecilia Comito, CTA.
17                MS. MOREY:  Carole Morey, CTA
18   construction.
19                MR. MCWHIRTER:  Andrew McWhirter,
20   CTA law.
21                MR. WILSON:  And I would like to
22   acknowledge the -- there is representatives from
23   the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency that are
24   on the phone with the conference call.
0005
 1                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Jeff, can I
 2   ask a dumb question?  What is Chicago Transit
 3   Partners?
 4                MR. WILSON:  CTP.  Is there somebody
 5   from CTP that can clarify?
 6                MS. LITTRELL:  They are a program
 7   manager.  It's a joint venture between AECOM and
 8   Kenny Construction.  They are a program manager.
 9                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  Thank
10   you.
11                MR. WILSON:  And what I would like
12   to do is this is a Section 106 meeting, and the
13   Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
14   Act requires federal agencies to consider the
15   affects of projects that carryout, approve or fund
16   on historic properties.  Section 106 review
17   ensures that preservation values are factored into
18   the federal agency planning and decisions.
19                     This is the fourth in a series
20   of four that we have on the Section 106 process,
21   and what I would like to do now is introduce Tom
22   Ambry, who is going to do the PowerPoint
23   presentation.  And I would just like to say that
24   any non-Section 106 questions or concerns, please
0006
 1   wait until after the meeting, and we can address
 2   them outside this room.  Thank you.
 3                MR. AMBRY:  Good afternoon.  My name
 4   is Tom Ambry.  I am a registered architect, and I
 5   work on the Wilson Transfer Station Project for
 6   the CTA.
 7                     Out of community concern, CTA
 8   has come to the architects and the engineers under
 9   the project and asked to redesign the beam and the
10   columns across Broadway.  This slide shows the
11   existing -- we'll just give you an idea of the
12   existing location.  This is south of the Berry
13   building and looks across to the west of the Berry
14   building.
15                     Right now in the construction
16   documents this is the detailing that we have.
17   It's an I-beam going across Broadway with bracing,
18   about 45 degrees going back to a structure that's
19   on a W column, which is sort of like a cross
20   section.  It looks like a bowl with an H.  That's
21   on a three-foot-six pedestal.  The pedestal has a
22   little bit of detailing that comes from the
23   detailing on the terra cotta of the Gerber
24   building.
0007
 1                     In response to comments, again,
 2   from our previous meetings, we went back and we
 3   looked at the beam and the column, and our Option
 4   A is a built-up girder, box girder that you see at
 5   the top.  That's approximately five-feet-five by
 6   two-feet-two, and then a box column coming down on
 7   a concrete pier with -- this is a -- there's
 8   still a cap that covers the bolts for the interior
 9   column.
10                     And with the Broadway Berry
11   building, it has these bands, and we looked up and
12   down Broadway and several other buildings have
13   this band.  So we took the language of the band on
14   the column.  So that's our Option A.
15                     Option B is similar in detail,
16   but we decided to embellish the column with --
17   sort of it's an engraving.  It's a water jet cut
18   inside the platings, and this is from the design
19   of the Majestic building on Broadway.  Again, we
20   have the bands that reflect the bands in the Berry
21   building, and that's on a concrete base with
22   steel -- a steel base cover plate to cover the
23   bolts of the column.
24                     I am going to now present a
0008
 1   virtual walking tour.  There we go.  We are on --
 2   we are just -- we are on the west side of Broadway
 3   looking north walking north.  This is just north
 4   of -- the Gerber building parking lot would be to
 5   the left.  We are walking up to Clifton.
 6                     There is ten -- we are proposing
 7   ten of these columns along Broadway.  We are
 8   passing the Ace Hardware building and we are going
 9   across Clifton.  This is the Berry building.  Now,
10   we have crossed Leland.  This is the Uptown
11   Broadway building, the Majestic.  Looking south on
12   Broadway.  Looking west towards the Berry
13   building.  We will turn and walk south along
14   Broadway.
15                     Again, this detailing is the
16   detailing from the Majestic.  That's Option B.
17   The last look of the Berry building.  The Ace
18   building, Ace Hardware.  And then we are going to
19   go back to where we started.
20                MR. KRUEGER:  What address is this
21   last column on the east side on the front of it?
22                MR. AMBRY:  That's 4643 North
23   Broadway.
24                MR. KRUEGER:  So that's 43?
0009
 1                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah.
 2                MR. KRUEGER:  So that's in front of
 3   what would we the retail of Gigio's Pizza right
 4   now?
 5                MR. AMBRY:  Yes.
 6                MR. KRUEGER:  Okay.
 7                MR. AMBRY:  In summary, the current
 8   design of the beam across Broadway has an I-beam
 9   and the column is a W column, which again looks
10   like a heavy H in cross section.  We are proposing
11   a box girder, a built-up box girder in Option A
12   and Option B is the column, which is a box column.
13                MR. WILSON:  So the next steps in
14   this process are, one, we need to revise the
15   memorandum of agreement to include the box beams
16   and cladding on ten columns located on Broadway.
17                     Two would be after the execution
18   of the MOA, we will revise construction documents
19   to reflect the changes.  Three, finalize draft EA
20   and 4F with the FTA, and then, four, we will hold
21   a public hearing.
22                     And before we have any questions
23   in the Q & A, question and answer period, it would
24   be really helpful to the court reporter if when
0010
 1   you ask your question you would state your name
 2   and if you are representing anybody or something.
 3   I believe --
 4                MS. ANDERSON:  Cindi Anderson,
 5   Uptown Chicago Commission.  So one of the issues
 6   articulated had to do with the aesthetics, which
 7   is what this presentation just addressed.  But the
 8   second issue is the location of the support
 9   structures closest to the Berry building.  And I
10   didn't see any discussion of that in this
11   material.
12                MR. WILSON:  Carole, did you want --
13                MS. MOREY:  Right.  We are not
14   proposing to move the columns.
15                MR. WILSON:  Marty?
16                MR. TANGORA:  Martin Tangora, Uptown
17   Historical Society.  I like the direction of the
18   thinking in these Options A and B.  I would go
19   much further.
20                     But the first question that
21   arises is, why is that big box girder so long?
22   Why does it have to go several feet into the
23   sidewalk, exaggerating its impact both on the
24   street and on the building.
0011
 1                     Obviously, there is at least
 2   five feet, maybe seven or eight feet of room for
 3   it to be shortened.  And you can't tell me there
 4   is an engineering reason not to shorten it,
 5   because the shorter it is, the better the
 6   engineering, the more sturdy, the less vulnerable.
 7   So there is that question.  Why is that post so
 8   close to the Berry building?  And why is that box
 9   girder so long?
10                MR. TITZER:  One of the big -- the
11   location of that, it has to go in between the
12   handicap ramps over there.  In addition to that,
13   we couldn't put it right up on the curb line,
14   Martin.  It just would be in danger of getting
15   impacted by traffic, potentially.
16                     So not only did we have to move
17   it in between the crosswalks to get it out of that
18   area, but we also had to offset it off the curb a
19   little bit just to protect the column itself from
20   people getting -- you know, traffic from hitting
21   it, from impacting it.
22                MR. WILSON:  Alyssa, did you have a
23   question?
24                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Yeah.  I had a
0012
 1   process question.  This is Alyssa Berman-Cutler
 2   from Uptown United.
 3                     Are you seeking our input in
 4   order to revise the MOA and what's the timeframe
 5   for that?
 6                MS. MOREY:  Yes.  We were interested
 7   in whether anyone had sort of an issue with either
 8   design in particular with respect to cladding.
 9                MR. WILSON:  That's Option A and
10   Option B?
11                MS. MOREY:  I think that the timing
12   will depend on the outcome of that.
13                MR. NAKAI:  Gary Nakai with the
14   Buddhist Temple of Chicago.  What is the height of
15   that base?
16                MR. AMBRY:  The height is
17   three-foot-six for the concrete and then the base
18   covering is eight inches.
19                MR. NAKAI:  Eight inches.  So it's
20   four-foot-two.
21                MR. WILSON:  Alyssa?
22                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Has DHED signed
23   off formally on the location of the columns?  City
24   Planning Agency, and do they have an opportunity
0013
 1   to --
 2                MR. WILSON:  We can look into the
 3   requirements that DHED has for this project, but I
 4   don't believe -- it's not part of this process.
 5   DHED doesn't have a Section 106 in it, to our
 6   knowledge.
 7                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Okay.  This is
 8   beyond a Section 106 question.  You are proposing
 9   ten columns along the sidewalk, which is very
10   interesting in terms of the planning of the city.
11                     Does that have any formal input?
12   I understand there have been informal
13   conversations, but is there any opportunity for
14   formal input?
15                MS. MOREY:  The design has been
16   discussed with the city and CDOT.
17                MR. WILSON:  Yes, sir.
18                MR. LAWLOR:  Jack Lawlor with the
19   Dentons Law Firm representing Matthew Denny.
20                     This is not the type of
21   meaningful exploration of alternatives required by
22   federal law to show us what different ways to hide
23   the two objectionable columns.  It's kind of an
24   insult.
0014
 1                MR. WILSON:  Well, Jack, with all
 2   due respect, we are just coming back to the
 3   community with what was discussed at the previous
 4   Section 106 meeting, which the question that the
 5   Section 106 meeting that we held at Weiss Memorial
 6   was, how can CTA make this project less ugly is
 7   exactly what was stated --
 8                MR. LAWLOR:  That was not the
 9   question, respectfully.  The first question we
10   raised was we asked in Alderman Cappleman's office
11   in May for an explanation of why these columns
12   appeared for the first time in general public
13   circulation in May of this year when the FOIA
14   responses indicated that the CTA had decided to go
15   in this direction in September of the previous
16   year.
17                     That was the first question.  We
18   never received an answer.  Then, in addition we
19   asked the question, why was it necessary to do
20   this?  And the CTA in these proceedings indicated
21   two things, that it was necessary for public
22   safety, and it was necessary to prevent
23   derailments.
24                     I have studied the FOIA
0015
 1   responses given by the CTA, and never once is
 2   either mentioned.  We were further promised at the
 3   prior meeting on this subject that we would be
 4   given the calculations indicating why it was
 5   necessary from an engineering standpoint, and the
 6   response we got to the CTA was that to provide
 7   that would somehow violate national security and
 8   so the CTA -- with the exceptions under both the
 9   state and federal law for national security.
10                     So we never had an answer to the
11   question of why you are doing this to begin with.
12   Now, bear in mind that for the first time this
13   project is going beyond the existing footprint and
14   boundaries of the existing CTA right of way.  It's
15   extending beyond that without any zoning approval,
16   whatsoever, to do so toward properties that are
17   owned by consulting parties to these proceedings
18   within a few feet of their property.  One is used
19   as a sound recording studio and --
20                MR. WILSON:  Jack, I'd respectfully
21   ask, is there a question here or --
22                MR. LAWLOR:  There is a question
23   here.  You have never answered questions from
24   earlier proceedings.
0016
 1                MR. WILSON:  Okay.
 2                MR. LAWLOR:  And it is a serious
 3   problem because by placing these columns inside
 4   the expanded impact zone outside the existing CTA
 5   footprint within the historic district you are
 6   violating federal law under the Department of
 7   Transportation Act, and you had better explore
 8   design alternatives, because you are required by
 9   law to do so, and placing painting on top of the
10   columns is a far cry from what's required by
11   federal law.
12                     Further, the CTA represented at
13   the last time we met that it would meet with our
14   sound engineer and demonstrate the sound
15   mitigation that's required.  And we went through
16   those ponderous documents, and our sound expert
17   determined that most of these mitigation efforts
18   the CTA was talking about apply only to the
19   construction period and not to the eons of time
20   that will ensue after the construction period and
21   that the devices and techniques and so forth
22   otherwise applicable to CTA operations only appear
23   a block south toward Wilson and nowhere near this
24   vicinity.
0017
 1                     And a major one that's missing
 2   is a concrete panyard deck under these rails that
 3   muffles the sound.  It doesn't appear here.  It
 4   does appear south by Wilson, and what we are going
 5   to have is sounding rebounding, redounding all
 6   over the place.
 7                MR. WILSON:  Jack, I mean, we can
 8   sit here and debate those findings that you have
 9   come up with, but we have also gone out having had
10   our sound recording.  We feel like this is -- the
11   mitigation that we are taking with regards to
12   those sound rebounding has been done, and this
13   was --
14                MR. LAWLOR:  That is a joke.  That
15   is a nonresponsive joke.  You haven't answered a
16   single important issue in these proceedings, and
17   you come here and you simply cover the columns.
18   That's an insult to my intelligence.
19                MR. WILSON:  We are addressing the
20   specifics from the last Section 106 meeting and --
21                MR. LAWLOR:  What is the answer to
22   the specific -- sir, what is the answer to the
23   specific about why is this being done in the first
24   place?  Why was this not disclosed in September --
0018
 1                MR. WILSON:  And Jack, I am going to
 2   let Carole Morey -- who can answer some of those
 3   questions for you.
 4                MS. MOREY:  So first, just to
 5   clarify, there were always eight columns located
 6   along Broadway.  That's always been part of the
 7   design.  That was part of the design that we
 8   showed at the public meeting in October.
 9                     The only change that was made to
10   the design is that there were two columns that
11   were added, one on the west side of Broadway and
12   one on the east side of Broadway.  It doesn't seem
13   like the one on the east side of Broadway has
14   become an issue.  It's the one that's located on
15   the corner of Leland and Broadway adjacent to the
16   Berry building that's become the issue.
17                     The other ones were all shown in
18   the 30 percent drawings that were in October.
19   Now, the lawyer has indicated -- you know, did
20   file a FOIA request with us, which did provide
21   some documents that showed the evolution of the
22   design process, and I think what people need to
23   understand is that engineers will start to make
24   comments about things, and those will sort of
0019
 1   bubble up into the design.
 2                     So the actual changes to the
 3   design to add the columns I don't believe were
 4   added until in late -- jump in here -- late
 5   December, early January.
 6                MR. LAWLOR:  That's incorrect.  They
 7   were made at an October 2nd meeting.
 8                MR. CASTELLINO:  And first noted in
 9   September.
10                MR. TITZER:  I think the discussion
11   was mentioned in September.  The addition of the
12   column, though, that was later on in the design
13   process.
14                MS. MOREY:  It was after the October
15   meeting is what I'm saying.
16                MR. CASTELLINO:  That's not correct.
17   The FOIA response showed the minutes from a
18   meeting saying that the cantilever design would be
19   done away with and --
20                MR. TITZER:  If the questions at
21   that point -- if the design had -- it was brought
22   up -- to the surface of that point, sir, the
23   column was not put into the design at that date.
24                MR. CASTELLINO:  Well, there is a
0020
 1   mention of two columns being added in October,
 2   early October.
 3                MS. MOREY:  That was a proposal from
 4   the engineers.  It was something they wanted to
 5   look at from a structural standpoint.  That's how
 6   the design process for a project like this works.
 7   The engineers come up with the designs, they sort
 8   of bubble up through the process, and, you know, I
 9   think it was possibly December or January before
10   they were formally added and included in the
11   design.
12                MR. CASTELLINO:  Well, to Jack's
13   point, which was partially stated.  I won't repeat
14   it again, but I incorporate everything that he
15   said.  We still -- we asked at the Alderman's
16   office in May, at the informal meeting.  We asked
17   in June at the Section 106 meeting.  Jack just
18   asked again.  Still nobody had told us why, from a
19   safety perspective, which is the generic standard
20   reason, safety, possible derailment.
21                     But we have asked through FOIA.
22   We have asked informally.  We have asked at these
23   meetings.  Give us something to support the safety
24   conclusion and we still have gotten nothing.  So
0021
 1   we are asking again.
 2                MS. MOREY:  So what we have
 3   previously stated at meetings is the problem with
 4   the cantilever option -- and John, again, jump in
 5   here, is that the anchor bolts, which secure the
 6   structure, the connection to the most important
 7   part of the structure, that's where the -- where
 8   failures most often occur, at the connection
 9   points, they will be incased in concrete in the
10   cantilever option and that leaves open the
11   possibility of a catastrophic failure.
12                     Our structures are designed for
13   100-year life, which means many of our structures
14   have been in place more than 100 years.  So in
15   order to meet our design criteria, we didn't think
16   the cantilever option was possible.
17                MR. CASTELLINO:  Where is that
18   stated in writing, because it hasn't been supplied
19   in any of our requests, informally or formally
20   from FOIA, none of what you just said.
21                MS. MOREY:  I think this was all
22   expressed in the last meeting that we had.  We
23   could go back to the transcript.
24                MR. CASTELLINO:  There was, again, a
0022
 1   general, generic -- I don't mean that -- I mean
 2   that with all due respect, a general generic
 3   comment like the one you just made, that it was
 4   safety concerns.  Safety is paramount.
 5                     What we are asking for is where
 6   is this written?  Where are there written reports
 7   from the engineers supporting everything that you
 8   just said?
 9                MS. MOREY:  I don't know what you
10   are asking or whether what you are asking for at
11   this point actually exists or not.  We gave you
12   the documents relevant to the evolution of this --
13                MR. CASTELLINO:  So there are no
14   engineering reports or actual calculations stating
15   that this is necessary, because that's what we
16   have asked for, and we haven't gotten it.
17                MS. MOREY:  We do have engineering
18   calculations associated with the project, and we
19   are reviewing those, but the decision was made
20   there was security concerns in releasing those on
21   a FOIA.
22                MR. WILSON:  And I believe all those
23   were answered through the FOIA requests, if I'm
24   not mistaken.  Right, Carole?  So it's duly noted
0023
 1   that you have an objection to that, and I would
 2   like to move on to Gary.
 3                     So if you could, please.
 4                MR. NAKAI:  Yes.  I would like to
 5   make a statement for the record, please, that in
 6   the most gentlest or polite way I can say it that
 7   I'm also taking objection, Jeff, to the way you
 8   are characterizing how this meeting is a stepping
 9   point from the last meeting.
10                     In other words, that what we had
11   at the meeting that I went to, we're all in such
12   agreement that now we are just going to talk about
13   a follow-on, which that might have been the intent
14   at that time.  But it seems to me there was so
15   much objection about the fundamentals of the
16   process and hearing everybody out, as well as the
17   placement of these columns that CTA might have
18   wanted it to be a pure 106 meeting where you want
19   to talk about the terra cotta slabs on the -- here
20   and there, but I don't believe anyone could leave
21   that meeting thinking that everything was
22   understood and now we are just going to come in
23   and talk about the same physical solution.
24                     So I wanted to make that
0024
 1   objection, that I don't like the way it's being
 2   portrayed that -- why we are assembled here,
 3   because it's just a simple step off of what we had
 4   accomplished at the last meeting.
 5                MR. WILSON:  Thank you, Gary.
 6   Marty?
 7                MR. TANGORA:  Yeah.  Martin Tangora,
 8   Uptown Historical Society.  I would like to
 9   support what Gary just said.  I remember that
10   meeting very well.  There were some long-winded
11   remarks and some of them were directed to this
12   issue of the ugly column, but most of them were
13   much more fundamental.
14                     And the Uptown Historical
15   Society feels that here we are in the year 2013
16   and the government wants to put a superhigh way
17   through our historic district, and basically we
18   have to take it or leave it.
19                     $200 million is a wonderful gift
20   to the community if it solves some community
21   problems, but this isn't solving community
22   problems.  This is the engineers saying, we can
23   straighten the tracks and then the trains can run
24   faster between Lawrence and Wilson and various
0025
 1   secondary concerns of that kind.
 2                     Now, if you don't mind an
 3   attempt at humor, I see a pig in a poke, and we
 4   are talking now about what color lipstick to put
 5   on the pig, and I see that wasn't a very popular
 6   joke.
 7                     But I am prepared to talk about
 8   these design ideas.  In fact, I brought some
 9   graphics along the same lines, about what kind of
10   surface could be put on the sound wall, and I
11   can't believe that you would put such an elaborate
12   terra cotta like surface on the post here, the box
13   column, and leave the box girder completely plain.
14                     I mean, we have to talk about
15   what we are going to do with the design of the box
16   girder.  There should be a coping on top.  There
17   should be an option near the bottom, other things
18   to make that look less ugly and less imposing.
19                     But while we have slide five, we
20   look at the upper drawing there.  We have the post
21   that I complained about before sitting about seven
22   or eight feet from the Berry building.  Now, if
23   you go back to slide three, while -- this -- I am
24   going by the numbers on the slides and not by
0026
 1   whatever they are in your program.  That slide.
 2                     Do you see the light post on the
 3   corner that supports the traffic signals?  Why
 4   can't you put the new post where that post is?
 5   That's my question.  And you said, because it
 6   would be in the way of traffic.  Now, do you have
 7   statistics about how many times that post has
 8   been -- has caused an accident?  No, because we
 9   asked about those.
10                     We ask those questions all the
11   time, statistics about traffic and all we get is
12   CDOT says, you can't do this.  You can't do that.
13   That post is -- where the light -- signal light
14   post is is the right location if you have to have
15   the damn box girder coming across the street,
16   which we don't accept, because we want to back up.
17                     And so I am supporting Gary's
18   point and Jack's point and Mike's point that we
19   did not come here with our sole expectation being
20   that we could talk about what color lipstick to
21   put on the pig.  We have more basic concerns about
22   this project.
23                MR. TITZER:  Martin, those traffic
24   posts are designed to sheer at the anchor bolts,
0027
 1   if impacted.  So if someone did hit the post, it
 2   would likely come down, right?  If you hit one of
 3   our CTA structural posts in the same manner, it's
 4   not going to break.  It's going to completely
 5   destroy whatever hits it.
 6                     Not only that, we have to keep
 7   in mind the turning radius from Leland onto
 8   Broadway.  So, you know, I can't have something
 9   that close to the curb.
10                MR. TANGORA:  That's a partial
11   answer, but it's not a complete answer.  I
12   don't -- that's close to the curb, and you say
13   it's okay, because if a car hits it, the car won't
14   be totaled, because the post will fall over.
15                MR. TITZER:  I mean, yeah, we don't
16   want anybody hitting our structure.  And in
17   addition to that, like I said, the handicapped
18   ramps, we have to deal with that as well.
19                MR. TANGORA:  But aren't they
20   already there?  I mean --
21                MR. TITZER:  The handicapped ramps
22   are.
23                MR. TANGORA:  And couldn't they be
24   moved five feet to the south?  Would the girder
0028
 1   have to go where you want it to go because you
 2   can't move the handicapped ramp five feet to the
 3   south?
 4                MR. TITZER:  I mean, you know, you
 5   can move it five feet south, Martin, but what's --
 6   I mean, you know, honestly, you know, we designed
 7   it to be safe from impact.  I mean, you can move
 8   the column a foot, but to what end?  How much
 9   better are you going to have for a situation?
10   People don't like the columns on that side of the
11   street, period.
12                MR. TANGORA:  Even if you moved it a
13   foot, that would be 15 percent further from the
14   Berry building.  I'm looking at this from the
15   point of view of the Berry building.
16                MR. TITZER:  And I'm already nine
17   feet away from the Berry building.  I mean, is
18   that going to make that big of a difference?  I
19   mean, I am not -- you know, that's not really
20   going to be my answer, but, you know --
21                MR. WILSON:  I think at this point
22   it's important that we hear from people -- from
23   the consulting parties that have not had an
24   opportunity to voice their opinion and speak out.
0029
 1   If there is anybody in the room that is a
 2   consulting party and hasn't had an opportunity to
 3   say something, we welcome that input at this point
 4   in time.  Yes, sir?
 5                MR. KRUEGER:  Mike Krueger, owner of
 6   the Berry building.  I object to the locations of
 7   the columns.  That was the major point brought up,
 8   as Martin, Gary, Jack, Mike and others have
 9   brought up, and so I object to the location.  I
10   wish we were talking about something else.  I
11   agree with Martin, that the lipstick on the pig,
12   that's really what we are doing, and I object to
13   it 100 percent.
14                MR. WILSON:  Thank you.
15                MS. MOREY:  Can I ask a question?
16                MR. WILSON:  Yes.
17                MS. MOREY:  So what is the specific
18   objection to the location of the column?
19                MR. KRUEGER:  I don't have columns
20   in front of my building now, and all of a sudden I
21   am going to have these columns come right in front
22   of my building, which will damage a lot of things
23   to the value of the property, to the existing
24   commercial and residential tenants, and it's
0030
 1   just that it's a game changer, and then I have
 2   concerns with sound transferring closer to my
 3   property, vibration of the foundation.
 4                     There is a lot of things, and
 5   just the pure fact when people see -- the
 6   perception of potential lessees or renters when
 7   they come to my building and they see these
 8   enormous columns and beams, they are not going to
 9   want to rent there.
10                     It's -- so it's pretty -- I
11   think it's pretty common sense, much common sense
12   that -- why I have an objection to it.  And I
13   think you mentioned that it might actually enhance
14   my property.  I think that's ridiculous,
15   respectfully, and I just -- again, I 100 percent
16   object to the location of these columns and I wish
17   we were here talking about a different location.
18                MR. WILSON:  Gary, go ahead.
19                MR. NAKAI:  Yes.  I want to say
20   to -- as a suffix to Mike's statement there, I
21   think we also feel it doesn't have to be that way.
22   Everything that Mike just said can be ended with,
23   we feel this way because it doesn't have to be
24   this way.  But we feel like it's being, Jack,
0031
 1   shoved down our throat, or we are not being heard
 2   from.
 3                     I mean, a solution -- the beauty
 4   of a solution will always reveal compromise.  You
 5   know, if we had -- if CDOT was here --
 6                MR. WILSON:  CDOT is here.  Brian
 7   Roberts is here from CDOT.
 8                     Brian, could you raise your hand
 9   to acknowledge yourself?  Thank you.
10                MR. NAKAI:  Yes, I mean, what I was
11   going to say is everyone is talking about what --
12   CDOT wants it this way.  CDOT wants it this way.
13   How bureaucratic is the algorithm regarding
14   decision making of absolutely no columns in the
15   street, or an exception could be made because it
16   satisfies so much more in terms of economy of use
17   of materials as well.
18                MR. ROBERTS:  I can respond to that,
19   Brian Roberts with CDOT.  Our decision was
20   100 percent safety based.  One of the biggest
21   problems in the city is fixed object crashes, and
22   it actually kills more pedestrians -- or more
23   people than pedestrians.  It's basically people
24   running into things in the middle of the street.
0032
 1                     So that idea was just -- it
 2   creates conflicts between the vehicles and the
 3   posts, and actually -- in the current situation,
 4   there is actually conflicts between cars and cars
 5   passing alongside existing columns.
 6                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  Now, it's a
 7   gauntlet to travel down there.  I agree with you.
 8   But one in the middle of the street is -- you
 9   know, is a compromise engineering solution.  You
10   look at all the factors surrounding the initial
11   conditions and everything involved in the problem
12   solving and you weigh the impact of each one.
13                MR. ROBERTS:  At the Department of
14   Transportation, our objective is safety.  So
15   safety based, our answer is zero problems.
16                MR. WILSON:  Are there any other
17   questions related to -- Jack, go ahead.
18                MR. LAWLOR:  Are you saying that
19   nowhere in the city right now do you have any
20   designs remedying viaducts or anything else where
21   there are no columns in the streets?
22                MR. ROBERTS:  There are plenty of
23   locations where there is columns in the middle of
24   the street, and it will probably contribute to the
0033
 1   statistic I just told you.
 2                MR. LAWLOR:  Why do you keep placing
 3   them there, then?
 4                MR. ROBERTS:  Given a clean slate
 5   and an opportunity to take them out of the street,
 6   we would support that.
 7                MR. LAWLOR:  We don't feel there is
 8   a clean slate here.
 9                MR. ROBERTS:  If there is an
10   opportunity to take them out of the street, we
11   would support that.
12                MR. LAWLOR:  Well, let me submit
13   another thing.  We learned that there are sound
14   attenuation features a block from here near
15   Wilson, and when you throw into the mix using the
16   balancing approach that Gary has described with
17   the exception of a sound wall that's too short,
18   there is no similar sound attenuation efforts down
19   here.  Nothing is state of the art, absolutely
20   nothing.
21                     We are back to the way they did
22   things when Wrigley Field was constructed.  So
23   where is the mix?  Where is the balance?  It's
24   just sort of like one way, let's rush to the
0034
 1   memorandum of agreement and this entire sequence
 2   is out of sync with federal procedures and
 3   recommendations.
 4                MR. WILSON:  Jack, if you go back.
 5   Tom just brought up the slide that does show the
 6   sound mitigation walls that are going to be in
 7   place.  They currently do not exist.  So those
 8   elements are being brought up to this
 9   intersection.
10                MR. LAWLOR:  That's the only one,
11   and there is a lot of things that you are not
12   doing that could be done.  We will have a full
13   report on that when we get to the NEPA procedures.
14   And by the way, federal regulations encourage a
15   sequence that is nothing like the hodgepodge of
16   hearings that we have had here.
17                     You had a ready to sign
18   memorandum of agreement the May, the FOIA
19   documents revealed.  The FTA and the CTA were
20   ready to sign in May, even though -- and in its
21   October 2nd meeting they were already assigning
22   numbers to the two columns.  You are ready to sign
23   in May without any environmental --
24                MR. WILSON:  No.  Jack, that's --
0035
 1   really, that's an excellent point, and at every
 2   Section 106 meeting that we have had in the past
 3   that you have attended you have brought up this
 4   very issue -- and the court reporter, did you get
 5   in the document what Jack is saying?
 6                     So everything is being put into
 7   the document that voices your opinion.
 8                MR. LAWLOR:  And the -- the sequence
 9   chart that you gave us a few moments ago has the
10   MOA, your holy grail, right on the checklist with
11   a hearing afterward and no mention of ever getting
12   the environmental report and no mention of ever
13   having an environmental hearing at a time when the
14   federal regulations say these things are supposed
15   to be happening at the same time so you have a
16   holistic view, and not this shell game that we are
17   going through here.
18                MR. WILSON:  The Section 106 process
19   is just that.  It's a process that the FTA has
20   asked CTA -- and we agree with -- to go through in
21   order to address these concerns.  That's why we
22   are sitting here today.
23                     Is there any other consulting
24   party in the room that would like to voice an
0036
 1   opinion about this for the good of the order with
 2   regards to the Section 106 meeting pertaining to
 3   the Wilson Red Line Transfer Project?
 4                     Gary?
 5                MR. NAKAI:  A point of order, I was
 6   assured that by Mr. Assam of the FTA that you
 7   don't have to be a consulting party to make
 8   comments at this.
 9                MR. WILSON:  Absolutely.  You are
10   correct.  I am just making sure that all the
11   consulting parties that are represented for this
12   project have a voice and have something for the
13   public record to be said.  Yes, sir?
14                MR. DENNY:  Matt Denny, Uptown
15   Recording.  I would just like to reiterate what
16   Mike Krueger said.  I object completely to these
17   columns.
18                     I own a recording studio.
19   Currently, there are no columns on my corner at
20   Clifton and Broadway closest to my studio, and the
21   CTA is going to plop one of those giant columns
22   right on that corner with no regard to the impact
23   it will have on a recording studio.
24                     We have done sound studies, and
0037
 1   I am still waiting to hear back on the results of
 2   those, and I am pretty confident that it will
 3   reinforce how I feel the result of these columns
 4   is going to be.  Essentially, you are taking 19
 5   columns that are in the streets supporting the
 6   structure that is currently there, and you are
 7   getting rid of those 19 structures -- columns and
 8   you are putting ten columns, the weight of the L
 9   tracks on ten columns.
10                     So you have reduced the columns
11   by nine.  You have gotten rid of the concrete
12   columns that are closest to my studio and you're
13   replacing them with steel columns, and it will
14   effectively shut down one half of my business.
15                     And so despite the audacity of
16   how it looks, it's a threat to my business, my
17   livelihood.  I live there.  I live above the
18   studio.  I have five little children.  You know,
19   for a little human thought, you know, just to put
20   it on a human level, you know, I have five little
21   children.  I live -- my home is right there, and
22   you are going to put one of those giant girders
23   right in front of my home?
24                     I mean, that's -- we know that
0038
 1   there are alternatives.  We have been through this
 2   a thousand times, and the fact that we are even
 3   having these meetings is amazing to me, because we
 4   wouldn't be having these meetings if Mike
 5   Krueger's architect hadn't seen a document cross a
 6   table.  That is what has me so infuriated is that
 7   this meeting wouldn't even be happening if Mike
 8   Krueger's architect hadn't accidently been in a
 9   meeting where these plans popped up.  And he is
10   like, wait, I know that guy.
11                     Is that not correct?
12                MR. KRUEGER:  100 percent correct.
13                MR. DENNY:  Okay.  So this meeting,
14   everybody's time being wasted here, is a direct
15   result of something that the CTA was trying to
16   kind of sneak by.  So that's my objection.  Thank
17   you.
18                MR. WILSON:  Carole, do you want to
19   address the sound issue, now?
20                MS. MOREY:  Yes.  So just with
21   respect to the sound issue, you know that we
22   were -- we spent some time with you and your
23   counsel going through the documents, talking about
24   the noise mitigation efforts.  We also sort of
0039
 1   reinforced our obligation not to make things worse
 2   with respect to the noise and vibration, and you
 3   were kind enough to allow us into your studios to
 4   take measurements with respect to the existing
 5   noise and vibration.
 6                     And we are going to use that to
 7   do some modeling with our existing design and
 8   that's in process currently.  So we will be able
 9   to determine whether what we are proposing to
10   construct would have an impact on your business.
11   Obviously, if it would, we have an obligation to
12   mitigate that, and we understand that and take
13   that seriously.
14                MR. WILSON:  Gary -- Alderman?
15                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  Just very quickly,
16   because I know this has been brought up before.
17   Examples of medians like Michigan Avenue and the
18   one on Ashland, and it was brought up at some of
19   our meetings in the past, and I also know in
20   discussions I have had with CDOT we were toying
21   with the idea of putting a median down Broadway.
22                     It -- what is the reason why we
23   could not have a median there and for safety, like
24   we do on Ashland and Michigan Avenue, and because
0040
 1   my thought is, if we do have a median, is it
 2   possible to put a column that would be protected
 3   in case there were traffic accidents?
 4                MR. ROBERTS:  You know, our stance
 5   is to not have columns in the middle of the street
 6   whenever possible.  Even if you were to surround
 7   it with a six-inch curb, it still is vulnerable.
 8                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  So if we were going
 9   to do some work on Michigan Avenue again, some
10   pretty major work, we would get rid of the median
11   there?
12                MR. ROBERTS:  And that would be
13   taken into account.  I can't speak to another
14   project.
15                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  Okay.  I am not
16   clear on how that goes well with sound urban
17   planning practices.  My understanding is medians
18   are oftentimes encouraged, especially for
19   roadways, and now I am hearing it's not.
20                MR. ROBERTS:  It depends on the
21   project.  If you are just trying to protect one
22   column and you put up a six-inch curb right at an
23   intersection, I don't know that that's the safest
24   measure.  So that's why we were opposed.
0041
 1                MR. WILSON:  Thank you, Brian.
 2   Gary?
 3                MR. NAKAI:  Yes.  One of the things
 4   that was mentioned at the last meeting, and some
 5   of us were alerting the people in charge of these
 6   sound measurements that let's make sure that we
 7   are really measuring the worst case scenario, and
 8   when the technician came to our temple and he set
 9   up his transducers within our building, because we
10   are an affected party, and I am sure he did it to
11   other people here -- businesses, too, and then we
12   just had -- started to have a little conversation
13   and then I come to find out, and I said, oh,
14   that's not so bad.  Those are the newer trains,
15   you know, with the smooth wheels and everything
16   else.
17                     I said, you should wait
18   until you -- or you have the CTA run the poorly
19   maintained cars in this section, and get a worst
20   case scenario.  I mean, any time you solve a
21   technical problem, you have to look at the
22   boundary layer of conditions, and it's necessary
23   to look at the worst case scenario.  You can't run
24   the newest cars there that are really super smooth
0042
 1   and vibration fee, and I'm amazed at how quiet
 2   they are.
 3                     But see, that came out of the
 4   last meeting that there was concerns, not just
 5   from Mr. Denny's point of view, and from his sound
 6   test that his technician did, but I mean,
 7   just proper protocol to make sure that we are, in
 8   fact, doing the -- getting -- acquiring the data
 9   correctly.
10                     This is not the -- this is
11   another -- another facet of this process that
12   really suggests, hey, we have got to go back.  We
13   have got to go back.  We have got to go back, not
14   to be an impediment to progress or to future
15   prosperity, but we have to -- if you don't have it
16   right, we ought to take the opportunity when we
17   can to make it right.  Otherwise, we are going to
18   be sorry later on.
19                     I mean -- and the sad thing is
20   with Matt's comments and with Mike's comments, it
21   doesn't have to be this way.  Thank you.
22                MR. WILSON:  Lisa do you want to
23   respond to Gary's concerns?
24                MS. DICHIERA:  About the noise and
0043
 1   vibration and --
 2                MS. MOREY:  Well, the protocol for
 3   the study.
 4                MS. DICHIERA:  We have taken
 5   existing measurements both for noise and vibration
 6   as mentioned at the Uptown Recording Studio.  We
 7   also did your facility as well as a residential
 8   area.  And we used those measurements to plug into
 9   a model to predict what the future predictions
10   would be, and we do take into consideration the
11   structures that have been presented here at the
12   column locations.  And it will tell you what the
13   impacts would be, and we used FTA criteria to
14   measure the threshold of impacts both for noise
15   and vibration.
16                MR. WILSON:  Cindi, I believe I saw
17   your hand up first.
18                MS. ANDERSON:  Yeah, just to
19   provide -- from the Uptown Chicago Commission.
20                     I have been -- this goes back to
21   the end of last year, and we were requesting
22   renderings showing the location of the support
23   structures in general.  We couldn't get a
24   rendering, and so the suggestion was to have
0044
 1   another community meeting in the neighborhood,
 2   which I believe was in January, at Truman College
 3   and a whole set of boards would come and the
 4   structures would be addressed, and at that meeting
 5   there were no boards with structures.  They was --
 6   they said, oh, yeah, it exists and so we were
 7   having a community meeting to address a specific
 8   topic, which did not get addressed.
 9                     That would be provided later and
10   then we got to the point where we were going to --
11   the meeting we had in this same room, whenever
12   that was, and I kept asking and asking and asking
13   and finally needing to go to the Illinois State
14   Historic Preservation to say, you've got to help
15   us get these.  We can't -- we haven't had an
16   opportunity to review this.
17                     And at that point, you know, our
18   main concern was what was going to happen in the
19   Gerber building, because we -- this wasn't even on
20   our radar, and so going into that building
21   meeting, I thought that Thad Wong and
22   representatives of his who owned the Uptown
23   Broadway building should be at this meeting, too.
24                     So Alyssa and I double-teamed
0045
 1   his assistant to finally get his attention, and
 2   then his attorney contacted me and we had a long
 3   meeting, and then he was invited as our guest to
 4   this meeting in this room the last time with his
 5   architect.  And it turns out he is your architect.
 6   I haven't still met you, but, you know, you felt
 7   like you were going around looking at the building
 8   saying, won't somebody help you.  You know, can I
 9   get anybody's attention here?
10                     So it was -- I believe that
11   meeting where the Springfield folks came up here
12   was on a Monday or a Tuesday, and it was on a
13   Friday night at 5:00 just before the meeting that
14   we got the PDF file that showed the -- where all
15   these structures were going to be.
16                     So, you know, it was just last
17   minute information before we were at this forum,
18   and then it was there that your architect after
19   the meeting grabbed a few people and said, look at
20   this.  Where did this come from?
21                     So I know that you have
22   described that there were originally eight and now
23   there is ten, and, you know, what's two more, but
24   in the scope of a process, this hasn't been an
0046
 1   open discussion.  It's felt like we can't get what
 2   we need to participate in the way that we think --
 3   you know, in civics in America we should be able
 4   to participate.
 5                     So you are hearing a lot of
 6   frustration around the table, and I think you have
 7   heard every single consulting party except the
 8   state agency who hasn't spoken say, this is not
 9   acceptable.
10                MR. CASTELLINO:  In follow-up to the
11   point about continued public participation, given
12   how far along this is and given the fact that the
13   bid documents have been out for a few months, at
14   what point do you intend to seek zoning relief?
15                MR. WILSON:  One more time?
16                MR. CASTELLINO:  At what point do
17   you intend to seek the zoning relief that you need
18   for this project?
19                MR. WILSON:  Carole?
20                MR. CASTELLINO:  Going outside the
21   existing right of way.
22                MS. MOREY:  But we are doing it over
23   a public right of way.
24                     So we are building over existing
0047
 1   CTA property and also public right of way, which
 2   we have the right to do under the 1947 ordinance
 3   in the city.  And so that's what gives us the
 4   authority to do it.
 5                     You are right, the retail use of
 6   the Gerber building, which is planned for later on
 7   will require a zoning variance.  We haven't
 8   applied for that yet, because we will probably do
 9   that in conjunction with the respective department
10   for that building, and that hasn't happened yet.
11                MR. NAKAI:  Jeff, I wanted to follow
12   up with the -- sorry.  I didn't get --
13                MS. DICHIERA:  Lisa.
14                MR. NAKAI:  Lisa.  What -- you know,
15   you were sort of describing what the steps were
16   taken and what have you.  Well, maybe as a way of
17   demonstrating the 800-pound guerilla in the room,
18   this inertia in this process, if you didn't take
19   the measurements, sound measurements, with the
20   existing worst stock of CTA, will you go back and
21   take those measurements again?
22                     Because you said you are going
23   to enter that into a database and you are going to
24   turn the crank, and whatever comes out, that is
0048
 1   going to be it.  Well, if you didn't have the good
 2   data to begin with or didn't include the ends of
 3   the spectrum of the data, then you need to go
 4   back.
 5                     So I am asking you.  I was there
 6   when they were taking those measurements.  I was
 7   amazed at how smooth those cars were running.  Why
 8   don't you plan a whole day of scheduling all the
 9   junky cars on that route and run those
10   measurements again?  Will you do that?  Then the
11   answer will be very revealing.
12                MS. DICHIERA:  We do establish the
13   existing thresholds at the peak of the peak.  So
14   we do try to take the worst case scenario, and
15   when you have the peak conditions when you are
16   running the most trains.
17                MR. NAKAI:  You know, I'm not
18   talking about frequency.  I'm talking about
19   amplitude.
20                MR. WILSON:  Gary, to Lisa's point,
21   they did go out and take measurements, if I may
22   call them that, at the peak of the rush hour.
23                MR. NAKAI:  Correct.
24                MR. WILSON:  And what you are
0049
 1   referring to, if I'm not misunderstanding, you are
 2   asking them to take renderings based upon old CTA
 3   cars that we are phasing out of service and take
 4   renderings based on that, if I'm not mistaken.
 5                     Is that what you're asking?
 6                MR. NAKAI:  Well, no.  That's
 7   colored a little bit, but what I am trying to say
 8   is that I would dare anybody to disagree with me
 9   on this one point.  I read about how strapped CTA
10   is in maintenance, you know, and so -- and having
11   flat spots on the tires or the wheels is a direct
12   result of cutting back to the maintenance to the
13   bearable limit, and I'm talking about not
14   running -- not taking measurements when 100 other
15   nice cars are going at the peak periods.  I am
16   talking about taking really just one measurement
17   when the junky cars are going through.
18                MR. WILSON:  Understood.  Thank you,
19   for that Gary.  Alyssa?
20                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  And I understand
21   there is a mitigation plan for the sound.  So you
22   are working through your numbers now based on the
23   measurements that you have taken and then it is
24   possible that there will be additional mitigation
0050
 1   strategies implemented in the initial construction
 2   and that's -- that timeline is conducive?
 3                MS. MOREY:  Yes.  Yes.
 4                MR. WILSON:  Jack?
 5                MR. LAWLOR:  Some technical points
 6   in the interest of getting decent sound results.
 7                     First, our consultant watched
 8   your consultant do their readings, and your
 9   consultant did not recalibrate his instruments
10   before beginning, and I think that was disclosed
11   to me.
12                     That's fundamental.  That's like
13   a patrolman doing a radar to catch speeders
14   failing to recalibrate.  That kind of evidence
15   would be thrown out in court, and when asked about
16   it, your consultant simply said, I just rely on
17   the computer.  It's not a sound approach.
18                     Secondly, as to technique, we
19   were begging the CTA to put its sound device
20   measurement from not the door to Mr. Denny's
21   house, but to where his foundation begins, which
22   is much closer to the new proposed columns.  And
23   that was not done.  Where was the microphone, the
24   reader placed?  At the door.
0051
 1                     The other location is critical,
 2   where the foundation is most proximate, because
 3   that's the most proximate point to the sound
 4   recording studio.  So we are not just making this
 5   up.  This is really vital, and despite requests,
 6   it wasn't done that way.
 7                     Looking forward, why can't this
 8   area that's being impacted so heavily have the
 9   same sound attenuation approaches utilized not
10   only at Wilson, but state of the art?  There are
11   things called dual block rail mountings that can
12   reduce noise, the use of Fabreeka.
13                MR. WILSON:  Jack, I'm sorry.  I
14   didn't hear you.  Dual?
15                MR. LAWLOR:  Dual block, and also
16   Fabreeka materials that are essentially pads
17   between where steel intersects.  These cut down on
18   vibration and sound.
19                     And this has to be looked at
20   seriously, as does the need to supplement the
21   sound and vibration measures that Mr. Krueger and
22   Mr. Denny have already taken inside of their homes
23   at their own expense, which will have to be beefed
24   up substantially if there is any hope, whatsoever,
0052
 1   of having the sound and vibration impact on their
 2   properties not exceed what exists now, and we are
 3   quite frankly, pessimistic about that.  We are not
 4   done.  Our studies are continuing as well.
 5                     But your modeling has to be
 6   transparent, far more transparent than anything we
 7   have seen here, because your modeling is only
 8   going to be as good as the assumptions.
 9                MR. WILSON:  And once those sound
10   calibrations are finished, they will show the
11   transparency that's involved with the process.
12   And to Tom's point, they were outside the front
13   door taking those measurements, but I would
14   like -- John, if you can, address the mitigation
15   efforts that Jack was talking about with regards
16   to the dual block and the --
17                MR. TITZER:  The dual blocks are
18   being used down by the station house itself.  The
19   reason why we didn't -- and to actually use the
20   dual block, they have to be cast and concrete.  I
21   mean, you have to have a solid concrete deck to
22   actually put those dual blocks in service.
23                     Now, we have that probably at
24   the north end of the Gerber building and going
0053
 1   south.  We weren't able to go ahead and build that
 2   concrete deck over the Broadway Street there,
 3   because we -- you know, overhead clearance was an
 4   issue, as well as weight.
 5                     We have a lot deeper beams that
 6   would have to go across the street there to
 7   support the heavier concrete, the concrete base.
 8   So it would compromise the clearances at Broadway,
 9   and we just didn't -- didn't see it would be
10   necessary to do that.
11                MR. LAWLOR:  Well, you are going to
12   find that you are obligated under federal law when
13   you do this fact pattern to, first of all, prove
14   there is no alternative, which is far from being
15   proven based on everything we have heard here, but
16   then that you have mitigated to the greatest
17   degree possible, and that's not what I am hearing
18   here.
19                MR. TITZER:  Well, let me address
20   the Fabreeka.  Fabreeka is a standard for CTA as
21   well.  We use Fabreeka pads at the base of all of
22   our steel columns to concrete bases.  So that is
23   used throughout our new construction everywhere
24   for the system.
0054
 1                MS. COMITO:  So that would be used
 2   here?
 3                MR. TITZER:  Yes.
 4                MR. WILSON:  Alyssa?
 5                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  If Matt has a
 6   comment about sound, mine is completely different.
 7                MR. DENNY:  Well, you know, I would
 8   just like to make the point here, and if I am
 9   hearing this right, the CTA is using the more
10   sound proof columns in front of the Gerber
11   building, which the CTA owns and plans to put
12   retail in there.
13                     So the CTA is making their
14   retail spots more sound proof, more quiet.  They
15   are using the state of the art columns, and then
16   further down, Mike's retail is getting screwed.
17   My business is getting screwed.  It seems mildly
18   disingenuous to say, we can't use the state of the
19   art columns in front of your buildings, but we can
20   use it in front of ours.
21                MR. TITZER:  It's not anything to do
22   with the columns.  It's the overhead clearance
23   from the railroad down to the street.  To build
24   the solid concrete deck like we have south, we
0055
 1   would have to have more -- a deeper steel beam
 2   going across.  Yes, the columns would probably be
 3   larger as well.  It adds an exorbitant amount of
 4   weight, and once again, we don't have the
 5   clearance to get trucks and whatnot underneath our
 6   viaduct there.
 7                MR. WILSON:  Alyssa, did you have a
 8   statement?
 9                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Yeah.  I want to
10   talk a little bit more about aesthetics.  You
11   know, this is not a capitulation, but as long as
12   we are here, how -- can we talk about light a bit,
13   and if there has been any exploration of use of
14   light in this structure, especially as a
15   decorative element?
16                MR. TITZER:  We do have LED lighting
17   throughout the design, and, you know, everywhere
18   you are going to have a new elevated structure,
19   you will have a lot better lighting below it than
20   we do today.
21                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Is there a way
22   to build into this project maybe as part of the
23   art component an actual art, like art sort of
24   emphasis, especially as we are highlighting some
0056
 1   of these new decorative elements that would be
 2   added?  But I would like to look at that more
 3   further.
 4                MR. WILSON:  Could you expand upon
 5   that as far as --
 6                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Sure.  There has
 7   been a lot -- in public structures recently around
 8   the world, there has been a lot of use of light to
 9   really enhance especially in historic districts.
10   I think it could be something that could make an
11   impact here, regardless of how we are able to work
12   around some of these larger issues.
13                MR. WILSON:  Gary?
14                MR. NAKAI:  Yes.  Sir, I'm sorry.  I
15   forgot your name.
16                MR. TITZER:  John.
17                MR. NAKAI:  Okay, John.  What you
18   just said there really got my attention, because
19   when I was looking at this problem from my vantage
20   point, I was also thinking about solutions,
21   structural solutions, that involved different
22   depths of structures, different depths of beams
23   and things like that, and so you are saying that
24   we don't have the under clearance if we were going
0057
 1   to do certain things.
 2                     What I was thinking about when I
 3   was thinking back awhile, there is nothing sacred
 4   about raising the tracks.  I mean, if you want to
 5   look at it in terms of -- I looked at it in terms
 6   of energy.  The hump in the Wilson area will slow
 7   the trains down coming into the station and it
 8   will help you accelerate going out.
 9                MR. TITZER:  We don't try to change
10   grades like that, you know, in our railroad
11   system.  We try to maintain as low of a gradient
12   change as we can.
13                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  I understand
14   that.
15                MR. TITZER:  So you are saying to
16   raise the railroad above Broadway so we are able
17   to put a concrete deck in?
18                MR. NAKAI:  Right, but --
19                MR. TITZER:  And the dual.
20                MR. NAKAI:  And all factors being
21   equal, that's true, but I mean, with the most
22   efficient vertical stack-up of the structure or
23   what have you, what are you talking?  What do we
24   really need?  Do we need just six inches?  Do we
0058
 1   need 30 inches?  What do we have?  What do you
 2   have to play with?  How critical or how vital is
 3   that constraint that you can't move it up any or
 4   you don't have enough vertical clearance?
 5                MR. TITZER:  Right.  Well, I mean,
 6   it's not just making a hump right over the street.
 7   You have to actually taper that back.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  I understand.
 9                MR. TITZER:  So, you know, you are
10   talking about changing elevations of a structure
11   which, you know, most of them -- what we are
12   putting in is new, but then on the embankment, I
13   only have a wall that goes up so high.  Well, I
14   would have to taper back towards Lawrence Street
15   with the gradient change that you are talking
16   about, and in essence, probably increase the
17   height of the wall from the embankment that, you
18   know, holds the embankment back.
19                MR. NAKAI:  All right.  So for my
20   edification, how much of an interference --
21   vertical interference are we talking about?
22                MR. TITZER:  I will be honest with
23   you.  I don't have those numbers in front of me,
24   but it's enough that it would definitely impact
0059
 1   overhead clearance without doing something like
 2   you're saying.  It's just -- in fact, it would be
 3   very expensive to do what you are recommending
 4   here.
 5                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  We just saw --
 6                MR. TITZER:  It's a domino effect.
 7   It's not just, you know, doing one little thing.
 8   One little thing leads to a whole bunch of
 9   measures that have to be accounted for.
10                MR. NAKAI:  I understand.  But, you
11   know, with this -- now you going to a box beam
12   here.
13                MR. TITZER:  Yeah, and that was to
14   get rid of the diagonals, to soften the appearance
15   of the structure.
16                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  And it's
17   different torsion.  So aren't there -- isn't there
18   room for like creative thinking in extending that
19   into the structure supporting the tracks?  I mean,
20   are we -- you know, I am -- when I hear just, you
21   know, objections or retorts or answers to
22   questions or concerns, it seems like, well, why
23   don't we put them all in a barrel and a bag and
24   look at all of the conditions and the final
0060
 1   solution then will be reflective of all those
 2   constraints instead piecemealing this, because I
 3   don't want to piecemeal it, and I am not
 4   suggesting you piecemeal it.
 5                     You know, raise the tracks at
 6   this section here.  No.  I'm not for that.  I am
 7   for -- I am for a comprehensive solution that I
 8   don't see and I -- and in all due respect, that I
 9   don't see has happened.
10                MR. DENNY:  Let me just get this
11   straight.  This meeting is just to -- as Marty
12   said, to put lipstick on a pig?  Nothing is
13   changing, right, as far as the CTA is concerned?
14                MR. WILSON:  Well, I mean, we would
15   disagree, because we are changing the elements to
16   the specifics that we went over last --
17                MR. DENNY:  You are making them look
18   fancy and you are boxing them up and all of that,
19   but structurally this is the way you are going?
20                MR. WILSON:  Yes.
21                MR. DENNY:  Then this is a waste of
22   time.  This is an utter waste of time.
23                MR. WILSON:  There is still a whole
24   section of moving forward that we have to go
0061
 1   through.
 2                MR. DENNY:  What are you talking
 3   about?  You are just like making it terra cotta
 4   looking and a big box, but that giant girder and
 5   that girder and those two columns sitting on the
 6   sidewalk are going to remain; is that not correct?
 7                MR. WILSON:  Karen, do you mind?
 8                MS. SEIMETZ:  For purposes of 106,
 9   yes.  There has been a lot of talk about sound,
10   and as was indicated, our sound studies are not
11   done.  We will be coming back at a public hearing
12   on that.  But for purposes of the historical 106
13   that we are here today to talk about, that is what
14   we are proposing.
15                     And I think, too, we do take a
16   little bit of issue with lipstick on a pig.  That
17   was used to describe at the last meeting if we
18   were going to alter the color of paint and let the
19   community choose paint.  That was the comment
20   perhaps made by you of lipstick on a pig.
21                     Here, the whole configuration on
22   top has changed, been softened, the cladding, at
23   no insubstantial cost to the CTA.  So it's a
24   little bit, you know, sort of -- we heard a lot of
0062
 1   complaints last time about how the steel looked,
 2   how it was out of character with the neighborhood,
 3   how paint wouldn't do the trick.  So I'm sorry
 4   that, you know, historically you don't find this
 5   more pleasing and I hope that --
 6                MR. DENNY:  I don't find it
 7   pleasing.  The very existence of those columns I
 8   don't find pleasing.
 9                MR. NAKAI:  That's what the -- that
10   was brought up at the last meeting also, and as a
11   matter of fact, more vehemently than the terra
12   cotta or the finish on the structure there,
13   because that was -- what you're trying to say was
14   essentially what the meeting was about, what color
15   do you want it?
16                     But there was such a human cry
17   about, wait a minute.  We are talking about the
18   columns shouldn't be there, period.  I mean, that
19   was that fundamental.  Whether it was understood
20   or taken back to the drawing board or not, that's
21   the -- what the voice of the meeting from the
22   peanut gallery was saying.
23                     So it isn't -- it's not
24   exactly -- the one issue you are talking about is
0063
 1   you took extreme measures to make it look a lot
 2   better, and I understand that part of it, but the
 3   real crux of the objection was the physical
 4   placement of that structure.  These columns.
 5                MR. WILSON:  Gary, I'm going to let
 6   Carole Morey address that issue right now.
 7                MS. MOREY:  Right.  So just to speak
 8   to the plan.  So this is the proposed plan that --
 9   you know, that we brought to you for
10   consideration.  It does eliminate the cross
11   bracing that existed previously with respect to
12   the columns.  So it does eliminate the structure.
13                     It eliminates it at a
14   significant cost to the project.  So I mean, if
15   this isn't something that's, you know, palatable,
16   we don't have to do it.  You know, if it's not
17   something that you guys, you know, find as a
18   potential compromise.
19                     This was just a proposal from
20   us.  This is not reflected in the drawings.  You
21   know, it's not out there now.  It was just a
22   proposal.  So if that proposal is being rejected,
23   you know, I understand that.
24                MR. NAKAI:  Well, just earlier
0064
 1   before the meeting started, Jeff and I were
 2   conversing here and then when it started to --
 3   when I started to kind of talk about the concerns
 4   I had, and he very well remembers those, he told
 5   me, well, this meeting we are not moving any
 6   columns.
 7                     And I'm not trying to put words
 8   in your mouth, but I wish you would have repeated
 9   what you told me to Mr. Denny here, because you
10   emphatically told me, that's over and done with.
11   We are not going back there.
12                MR. WILSON:  Gary, if I may speak
13   for myself.  The conversation that we were having
14   was with regards to having columns in the middle
15   of the street.  And I said, absolutely CTA and
16   CDOT have decided that columns in the middle of
17   the street are not the way that we want to go.
18   CDOT has expressed that, and CTA agrees with that
19   statement.  That's what you and I were discussing.
20                MR. NAKAI:  I'm sorry.  Then I got
21   it mixed up, because I was thinking about the two
22   columns that -- I mean, that I was always talking
23   about.
24                MR. WILSON:  Correct.  As being in
0065
 1   the middle of the street versus on the right of
 2   way, the city and CDOT, CTA right of way.
 3                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  Forget about the
 4   column in the middle of the street.  We are still
 5   talking about the two columns on the sidewalk
 6   here.
 7                MR. WILSON:  Exactly.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  And are we going to move
 9   those, or is that a foregone conclusion?  Is that
10   up for discussion at any time from here on out, or
11   is that -- I think that's what we are kind of
12   questioning.
13                MR. WILSON:  Is the question if we
14   are moving those two specific columns from where
15   they currently are proposed right now to the
16   middle of the street?  Is that what you are
17   asking?
18                MR. NAKAI:  No, no.  I'm saying like
19   what Martin was even saying, to really investigate
20   that on why they have to be where they are in that
21   regard.  I mean, what is the answer to that?  Is
22   it no?  Then we could save a lot of time here.
23                     You know, you will be showing
24   your hand, mind you, if you -- how you answer
0066
 1   that, and I think it's been expressed so
 2   eloquently before how -- how the lack of
 3   transparency and the lack of goodwill is just
 4   killing this whole preparation here.
 5                     I mean, it seemed to me you can
 6   be -- you can be sincere and forthright, as
 7   opposed to being disingenuous.  I mean --
 8                MR. WILSON:  I think John or
 9   Carole --
10                MR. TITZER:  How much away from the
11   building, you know, do you want to move it down?
12   I mean, if we are not going to put them in the
13   street.  And once again, when I addressed Martin's
14   comment, you know, is a foot really going to mean
15   that much?
16                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  Well, if you are
17   asking me, I was just making the one point about
18   how sacred are those columns?  Do they have to
19   be -- do they have to exist, period?
20                MR. TITZER:  They do.
21                MR. NAKAI:  But if you want to talk
22   about an engineering solution, then I will -- I
23   will scrutinize CDOT's criteria and try to -- to
24   find the best solution.  I'll try to poke holes in
0067
 1   your argument about, no, you can't use a curb and
 2   things like that.
 3                     Mr. Cappleman was talking about,
 4   if you did put a curb there, an island there, then
 5   that goes a long way in keeping a car from hitting
 6   that column in the middle of the street.
 7                     So -- and then there is examples
 8   of existing practice, existing good practice,
 9   acceptable practice of, you know, judging from the
10   speed of the car versus the width of the venue and
11   everything else, how vital is it that you can't
12   put a column no matter how you dress it up or
13   protect the moving traffic?
14                     So, personally and
15   professionally and technically, I'm not convinced
16   that that's -- you can't go back and revisit that.
17                MR. WILSON:  Thank you, Gary.
18   Marty, did you --
19                MR. TANGORA:  I would like to
20   follow-up on what Gary said.  I went out and
21   looked at the columns this morning.
22   Aesthetically, the only problem I have with the
23   present viaduct is the maintenance.  It's old and
24   dinghy and neglected.
0068
 1                     I asked my son who has lived in
 2   the neighborhood for 30 years and has used the L
 3   and the bus and walked around for 30 years.  I
 4   said, how many columns do you think there are on
 5   the street and on the sidewalk?  And he said,
 6   maybe a dozen at the most.  In other words, people
 7   are not bothered by the existing columns.
 8                     That's not an argument for not
 9   being bothered by these new columns.  There are 11
10   columns in Broadway, and first of all, there is a
11   triple concrete column holding the old viaduct,
12   which is between the two northbound lanes of
13   Broadway, and then there is five more of these W
14   columns in steel or whatever they are between the
15   two northbound lanes.  And then there is another
16   one of these triple concrete columns between the
17   two southbound lanes.
18                     Now, we don't need to keep all
19   of those, I agree, but Alderman Cappleman has made
20   this brilliant suggestion of putting a median
21   there, and also there was a recent meeting where
22   they talked about improving Broadway in many ways
23   through here, and they talked about eliminating
24   left turns at Leland, and so that left turn was
0069
 1   always an issue here because of the columns in the
 2   middle of the street meant that cars had to take
 3   the curb lane to get around the people turning.
 4                     That's no longer an issue.  So
 5   if a median was put between the two northbound
 6   lanes and the two southbound lanes in the center
 7   of the right of way at Broadway, there would be
 8   plenty of protection, and it's obvious -- people
 9   have already said it -- plenty of protection for
10   columns that would eliminate or certainly mitigate
11   the need for this very ungainly looking box girder
12   that reaches clear across the street and looks
13   like bad engineering.
14                MR. WILSON:  Marty, thank you.
15                MR. TANGORA:  That's an aesthetic
16   comment, by the way.  It addresses 106, because we
17   are talking about the impact on the historic
18   district.
19                MR. WILSON:  Thank you.  Alyssa?
20                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  I think there
21   has been a lot of conversation about CDOT, and I
22   think that a lot of the frustration, Brian, is
23   that while CTA has -- at least has shown us a lot
24   of documentation, sends a lot of people to
0070
 1   meetings, it would be very helpful to have
 2   something more from CDOT other than your oral
 3   statements at these couple of meetings to feel
 4   like CDOT is --
 5                MR. WILSON:  To address that -- I'm
 6   sorry to cut you off.
 7                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Yes.
 8                MR. WILSON:  But Commissioner Klein
 9   did write a letter specifically to that, and that
10   is part of the public record.  So the Commissioner
11   of CDOT is on board with that and has pubically
12   stated that we don't want columns in the middle of
13   the street.
14                MR. NAKAI:  That needs to be
15   challenged.
16                MR. TANGORA:  That should not be an
17   absolute.
18                MR. DENNY:  Just to follow-up on
19   what James was arguing, the Alderman was arguing.
20                     To say that the medians on
21   Ashland and the medians on Michigan Avenue -- and
22   I think there are medians on other streets
23   throughout the city, and if you did work on those
24   streets that you would -- you wouldn't eliminate
0071
 1   those medians, but you can't discuss that as it
 2   applies to this project, because you can't comment
 3   on other projects?  To me that sounds like a
 4   disingenuous answer.
 5                     I mean, if you are putting
 6   medians on streets all over the city, clearly you
 7   could put a median here.
 8                MR. ROBERTS:  And you are talking
 9   about apples to oranges.
10                MR. DENNY:  No, I am not.
11                MR. ROBERTS:  Looking at a different
12   project on a different street versus a many-column
13   right at this enormous intersection, no, I can't
14   comment on other projects.
15                     Given this and with safety as
16   our 100 percent goal, having columns in the middle
17   of the street versus not, I think everybody could
18   agree, there is less conflicts if there is no
19   columns in the middle of the street.
20                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  I believe I already
21   saw a proposal for medians on Broadway.  That's
22   why I ask.  So I think it's worth exploring.
23                MR. CONNELLY:  Mike Connelly with
24   CTA.  The only point I want to try to make here is
0072
 1   that I would like to clarify this.  There is a
 2   difference between a landscape median with a
 3   planter in it and a median sheltering a column in
 4   the center of a street.  And you have talked about
 5   North Michigan Avenue or Ashland Avenue where
 6   medians have been placed for landscaping purposes
 7   with trees, and nobody went down the middle of
 8   Ashland and put steel columns with concrete bases
 9   supporting a structure overhead.  There is no
10   structure there to support, except at locations
11   where there are currently columns in the street.
12                     And again, the goal is, wherever
13   possible, on CTA projects, and I believe shared by
14   the Metra projects, wherever possible, to
15   eliminate the columns in the center of the street,
16   because that is the desire of CDOT.  As was
17   mentioned, CDOT did send us a letter and they said
18   in the letter they would really like to get the
19   columns out of the street.
20                     So I realize there is concern
21   here about maybe putting in a landscape median in
22   the future, and that that landscape median could
23   serve as the base for a column.  There is a big
24   difference between a landscape median and a
0073
 1   landscape median with a large concrete base and a
 2   support column for an overhead steel railroad
 3   structure.  That's all I want to say.  This is
 4   different.
 5                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  Well, here is my
 6   confusion.  My confusion is --
 7                MR. NAKAI:  What is the difference?
 8                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  Just very quickly, I
 9   guess my confusion is, CDOT made this
10   determination not having anything in the center of
11   the street for safety reasons, yet we see things
12   in the center of the street on Ashland and
13   Michigan Avenue and --
14                MR. CONNELLY:  My point is that
15   there is a difference between a landscaped median
16   in the center of the street and a steel and
17   concrete column in the center.
18                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  I'm not quite sure
19   how the difference pertains to safety.
20                MR. DENNY:  Yeah, what's the
21   difference?
22                MR. CONNELLY:  As was explained
23   before, the light pole at the corner -- I will go
24   back, John.  If you want to flip up that slide
0074
 1   again, that shows the light pole at the corner.
 2   The light pole at the corner supports the
 3   streetlight.  It's designed to break away -- in
 4   the upper picture, it's designed to break away at
 5   the base at the concrete street level.
 6                MR. CAPPLEMAN:  The medians are not
 7   designed to break away.  So I'm not clear how
 8   it's -- I think a steel column is --
 9                MR. CONNELLY:  I am not an expert on
10   median design.  So I am not going to try to talk
11   about how a median is designed.  I'm just saying
12   that that column that's there at that streetlight
13   is designed to break away, as are stop signs and
14   parking signs and bus stop signs and all the other
15   obstructions that are near the edge of a roadway.
16   They are designed to break away.
17                MR. DENNY:  No.  But what's the
18   difference?  You keep saying that it's different
19   from a concrete landscaped median on Ashland, and
20   then there is a huge difference from a column
21   being on the median.  What's the difference?
22                MR. ROBERTS:  I think the difference
23   is, if you ran into a column, the driver would die
24   almost guaranteed.
0075
 1                MR. DENNY:  If I ran into one of
 2   those concrete things on Ashland, I would probably
 3   die.
 4                MR. ROBERTS:  And that's an older
 5   design.  I'm not sure that that would be in place
 6   if we were to redesign Ashland Avenue.  So you are
 7   talking about, you know, CDOT and it's -- it's a
 8   six-inch raised curb in the middle of the street,
 9   and if a driver runs into that, they are going to
10   get over it.  They are not going to die.
11                MR. DENNY:  So what you are telling
12   me is that if you -- if CDOT does work on Ashland,
13   you are going to eliminate those medians?
14                MR. ROBERTS:  And I 100 percent
15   can't speak to another project.  I would not -- I
16   wouldn't think we would design something where if
17   a driver ran into it in the middle of the street
18   they would be stopped.
19                MR. DENNY:  But you can't answer my
20   questions?
21                MR. ROBERTS:  I can't speak to
22   any as a theoretical project.
23                MR. NAKAI:  Well, let me ask the
24   question in terms of the physical ability for a
0076
 1   raised section of the pavement to prevent a
 2   vehicle from running into that column.  All right?
 3                     Now, it seems to me if you just
 4   look at it that way, and forget about that this
 5   was a planter on Ashland, this was a planter on
 6   Michigan Avenue.  Forget about that.
 7                     Physically speaking, the
 8   solution for one can easily be the solution for
 9   another, and to say that, no, they are drastically
10   different.  It's a world of difference.  I didn't
11   mean to be facetious about, tell me what the
12   difference is, because I don't see -- if you are
13   trying to prevent a collision between that
14   stationary object like a pole or a column and a
15   moving vehicle, and the moving vehicle has wheels
16   on it, so if you have curbs to keep that vehicle
17   from jumping or going right into that column --
18   plus we are not talking about 65 miles an hour
19   here.  We are talking about 30 miles an hour.
20                     So what are all these factors
21   that we are talking about that we can't -- that
22   says that it's not a viable solution to put an
23   island that would shield the column?
24                MR. ROBERTS:  So you are talking
0077
 1   about a six-inch curb with a car going, say,
 2   30 miles an hour, that would hit the curb.  It
 3   would slow down a bit, but it would go over the
 4   curb?  It cannot be stopped?
 5                MR. NAKAI:  Put a 12-inch curb
 6   there.
 7                MR. TANGORA:  I am talking about was
 8   it three-foot landscaped --
 9                MR. ROBERTS:  That's what we are
10   talking about.  We wouldn't want a structure that
11   would absolutely 100 percent stop the car, and
12   that's where you get the fatalities that we have
13   seen throughout the city where a car hits a fixed
14   object, which again, kills more people than actual
15   pedestrians in the street.
16                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  The approach to
17   the column for the 20 feet on each side of that
18   column can be breakaway, energy absorbing
19   material, and it could be deflecting material that
20   has to be, of course, changed after an incident
21   like that.
22                     But you won't have a head-on
23   collision with that column.  You can deflect the
24   head-on collision with the column.  So to tell me
0078
 1   that there is no way you could put a column in
 2   there because it's dangerous?  As part of this
 3   overall solution, I just -- I think it's
 4   incredible.
 5                MR. WILSON:  I think this
 6   conversation can go round and round and round
 7   again.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  So the median --
 9                MR. WILSON:  Gary, if I may, but the
10   point is, CDOT and the Commissioner have stated
11   that they don't want anything in the middle of the
12   street pertaining to a column.  I understand the
13   Alderman's questions with regard to planters.
14   That's for the public record.  It's been stated.
15   We need to move forward from that.  Cindi?
16                MS. ANDERSON:  Just a point of
17   clarification.  So like the median on Lake Shore
18   Drive, that height of the median, if that was in
19   this area that we are talking about, your concern
20   would be a car going north or south on Broadway?
21   That hit it dead on?  Is that the concern?
22                MR. ROBERTS:  I'm not sure what --
23   Lake Shore Drive or which median?
24                MS. ANDERSON:  Well, Lake Shore
0079
 1   Drive has medians this high that are -- plant
 2   trees and light posts and all kinds of things.  I
 3   drive it every day.  So that is -- I think the
 4   height is about the height of the base of these
 5   columns that we are talking about.
 6                     So I am just trying to
 7   understand if the design -- not a six-inch design,
 8   not rain barrels full of sand, but if it was a
 9   concrete design like on Lake Shore Drive at a
10   similar height, what are -- the safety issues
11   would be a head-on collision for traffic going
12   north or south.  Is that --
13                MR. ROBERTS:  I don't think we can
14   compare a limited access highway like Lake Shore
15   Drive with this.  I was just referring to the
16   actual height of the curb.  If you were -- a lot
17   of our medians right now, if they are raised in
18   the middle of the street, they are six-inch.  It's
19   designed for a car to not be completely stopped.
20                     So once you start putting a
21   structure like a column that is designed to stop
22   something that hits it, that's something that we
23   would not support in the middle of the street,
24   especially if there is an alternative design.
0080
 1                MS. ANDERSON:  I think that might be
 2   a compromise here.  I think that needs to be
 3   discussed.
 4                MR. WILSON:  I think we have gone
 5   full circle with the conversation with regards to
 6   a median in the center of the street versus a
 7   column in the middle of the street.  CDOT and CTA
 8   aren't putting a column in the middle of the
 9   street.  That's what John and Carole have talked
10   about.
11                     So the only thing we can do at
12   this point is to talk about the next steps moving
13   forward.
14                MR. NAKAI:  A clarification, Jeff?
15                MR. WILSON:  Yes, Gary.
16                MR. NAKAI:  From what you just said,
17   does that preclude having the topic specific
18   meeting with CDOT on this, on this issue of median
19   and column in the middle of the street?
20                MR. WILSON:  CTA has met with CDOT
21   on specifics to --
22                MR. NAKAI:  I am talking about with
23   me and Martin and Jack, and Matt, James, Mike.
24                MR. WILSON:  I mean, Gary, we have a
0081
 1   letter from the Commission that states that we are
 2   not putting a column -- as to why we are not
 3   putting the column in the middle of the street.
 4   That is something that we have and what we need to
 5   do right now for purpose of this Section 106
 6   meeting is to move forward with the next steps.
 7                MR. NAKAI:  Well, it sounds like --
 8                MR. WILSON:  We can keep going round
 9   and round and that's fine, but --
10                MR. NAKAI:  No, no.  I'm not --
11   don't color -- please don't color my objections as
12   to going round and round and round.  The thing is,
13   this is sounding like the objections that have
14   been raised to this point in that -- in here and
15   this is kind of heavy-handed.  You know, you are
16   just kind of shoving this down through without
17   really listening to the concerns of the consulting
18   parties.
19                     And what I mean by really
20   listening is then have that meeting with CDOT.  I
21   mean, obviously we are not -- we don't think that
22   meeting was really held in the proper spirit of an
23   overall solution.  It's just like saying, hey,
24   what do you think, CDOT?  Oh, okay, fine.  And
0082
 1   then you go to them, and it's cast in concrete,
 2   and it's the law, and we can't even -- we can't
 3   even revisit that.  I don't know of anything in
 4   history that was never able to be revisited.
 5                MR. WILSON:  What I would like to do
 6   right now is if there is anybody that has anything
 7   to say about Option A or Option B with regards to
 8   the columns, as the question was per the last
 9   Section 106 meeting, to make these columns look
10   "less ugly" to quote from the last meeting, can we
11   have some discussion about the Column A versus
12   Column B?  If not, then we just need to dismiss
13   the meeting and move forward.  Marty?
14                MR. TANGORA:  Yeah.  All my comments
15   should be taken as given under protest, because I
16   object to narrowing the focus, but since we want
17   to narrow the focus or some of us do, I am
18   perfectly happy to do that.
19                     I like the ideas that are shown
20   in Option B.  I'm not sure that the exact design
21   is the one that should be settled on, but I like
22   the concept of B.  But as I said before, the box
23   girder needs to be more decorative.  It doesn't
24   have to be covered with terra cotta.  Maybe it
0083
 1   should be, but it should at least have a coping
 2   and some element at the bottom to break up that
 3   five-foot, five-inches.  That's way out of scale
 4   for a historic district.
 5                     And I also brought actually with
 6   me some graphics about the sound wall.  I have
 7   seen the latest versions of the sound wall show
 8   some scoring on it to break up the surface of
 9   that, and that's a step in the right direction.  I
10   want to suggest -- and maybe the best thing is for
11   me to send e-mails with pictures.
12                MR. WILSON:  Absolutely.
13                MR. TANGORA:  I want to suggest that
14   at least over the streets, Leland and Wilson, that
15   sound wall should be decorative, and not just
16   five-foot-five of raw concrete or a little bit of
17   scoring.
18                MR. WILSON:  Thank you for that
19   input, Marty.  Alyssa?
20                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  I agree with
21   Marty.  A little bit of something on the top would
22   be good.  I think overall I wonder if it would be
23   worth looking at just having some of them this
24   highly decorated one and some of them simpler.  I
0084
 1   am a little concerned about --
 2                MR. WILSON:  So between columns or
 3   within the column itself?
 4                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  I guess I was
 5   thinking as between different columns.
 6                MR. WILSON:  So alternating columns
 7   having both Option A and Option B?
 8                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Yeah, because I
 9   like them, but they are intense.
10                MR. TANGORA:  Can you show the slide
11   where we see several of the columns in
12   perspective?
13                MS. MOREY:  So just to clarify, they
14   are actually probably going to be a little bit
15   less intense, and you saw the walkthrough.  It's
16   going to be subtler than what you see in the
17   walkthrough.
18                     It's not -- I agree with you.
19   The walkthrough is kind of intense, and we tried
20   to do what we could to soften it, but it won't be
21   quite as intense.  It will be kind of more like
22   this in terms of the way -- I mean, Tom, if you
23   could speak to that.
24                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah.  It's -- those
0085
 1   plates are -- it will be like an inch plate, and
 2   then it's like -- it will be like an eighth will
 3   be just a solid plate behind it, and then
 4   three-eighths of the plate will be sort of
 5   engraved.  It's a water jet.  So it will be --
 6                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  So you're saying
 7   there's not a lot of depth to it?
 8                MR. AMBRY:  Actually, like from this
 9   view, if we are looking at the Berry, it will --
10   you may be able to figure out that there is some
11   type of pattern, but you -- it will be very, very
12   subtle.  It's when you are walking by you will see
13   the pattern, but if you are in a car or something
14   like that, it's -- it will be much subtler.
15                     We wanted to emphasize it a
16   little bit just to -- you know, to show you that
17   we are -- you know, what we have done.
18                     It's not terra cotta on there.
19   The design is from the Majestic building.  It has
20   pillars of terra cotta along the sides of the
21   doorways and other areas, but this is a copy of
22   that as a reflection of that.  It's just like the
23   horizontal bands we caught from the Berry building
24   to break it up.
0086
 1                MR. NAKAI:  So you are talking about
 2   a pattern profiled in the three-eighths thick
 3   steel with a steel backing --
 4                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah, because we don't
 5   want people to stick stuff through it into the
 6   structure behind.  So we've got a plate -- a
 7   little -- a thin plate behind it.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  But the -- but
 9   structure-wise as a column with an eccentric load
10   on it, you are talking about a solid box section
11   of that column, too, right?
12                MR. AMBRY:  Those sections are
13   decorative.  That's put on the -- it's not quite
14   the same, but it's almost like -- it's almost
15   this, but we have covered it.  We still need the
16   structure behind.
17                MR. NAKAI:  Okay.  So -- but I
18   thought the descriptions called for a -- not a Y,
19   but a --
20                MR. AMBRY:  A box beam.
21                MR. NAKAI:  A box beam.
22                MR. AMBRY:  Right.  Yeah, the webs
23   have gone to the sides instead of down the center.
24                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  So you couldn't
0087
 1   put anything through that anyway.  I mean, you've
 2   got to --
 3                MR. AMBRY:  No.  But if we have the
 4   pattern, if the pattern is cut through that,
 5   people can poke stuff through.
 6                MR. TANGORA:  Chewing gum.
 7                MR. AMBRY:  Wrappers.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  Excuse me.  So you are
 9   saying that you are going to profile this design
10   on the -- that box?
11                MR. TITZER:  It's not a box beam,
12   just to clarify.  There will be W shape columns
13   like we originally had designed.
14                     These are -- this is cladding
15   for each side just to soften the column up, and we
16   also covered up the anchor bolts, because that was
17   kind of ugly, too, so --
18                MR. TANGORA:  These are like
19   incised, right, in the surface?
20                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah, it's almost like
21   an engraving, but --
22                MR. TITZER:  Right.  It's deeper
23   than engraving, but it's similar in analogy to
24   engraving.
0088
 1                MS. MOREY:  And it's set up so the
 2   panels can be removed so we can inspect the
 3   structure, because that's really important that we
 4   have the ability to inspect the connections.
 5   That's a safety issue.
 6                MR. WILSON:  Alyssa?
 7                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  I do approve of
 8   the removal of the additional beaming as well.
 9                MR. WILSON:  Okay.  Thank you.
10                MR. TANGORA:  The cross -- the
11   bracing?
12                MS. BERMAN-CUTLER:  Yeah.
13                MR. WILSON:  Thank you.
14                MR. NAKAI:  Now, earlier we said
15   that the -- it's four feet, two inches to the top
16   of the cap on the base of these columns and then
17   proportionately, if that's drawn proportionately,
18   then the -- it's, what, like 36 inches on the
19   square, a side, the base there?
20                MR. AMBRY:  They are four-feet-eight
21   squared.
22                MR. NAKAI:  Four-feet-eight?
23                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah, it should be --
24                MR. NAKAI:  Then it looks like it's
0089
 1   six-foot tall there.
 2                MR. AMBRY:  I'm sorry.  I might not
 3   have understood.  These down here?
 4                MR. NAKAI:  Yes.  What is the
 5   footprint of that base?
 6                MR. AMBRY:  This is -- this is
 7   four-foot-eight.
 8                MR. NAKAI:  Four-foot-eight.  So
 9   then obviously the vertical edge there can't be
10   four-foot-two then.
11                MR. TANGORA:  It doesn't sound
12   right, does it?  It doesn't look right.
13                MR. NAKAI:  It's more like --
14                MR. TANGORA:  You are saying that it
15   would be wider than it is high?
16                MR. NAKAI:  Right.
17                MR. TANGORA:  It's a rectangular
18   cube there.
19                MR. NAKAI:  It doesn't look that
20   way.  It looks just --
21                MR. TANGORA:  It doesn't look that
22   way, no.  Well, four-foot-two versus
23   four-foot-eight.
24                MR. NAKAI:  No.  He said
0090
 1   four-foot-two is the height.
 2                MR. TANGORA:  Is the height and
 3   four-foot-eight is the width?
 4                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah.  The height is
 5   four-foot -- is three-foot-six.
 6                MR. TANGORA:  Plus eight.
 7                MR. AMBRY:  Which is 42 inches.  And
 8   then right underneath here with this design there
 9   is -- there is base plates there, and you don't
10   want to see the bolts coming up and the nuts.
11                     So we put this covering over it
12   to cover the base plate of the column, because we
13   have to get in there and inspect that.
14                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  Well, what I was
15   trying to get at is -- my question was going to
16   be, first, I was considering how obtrusive this
17   big cube would be on the sidewalk.  All right?
18                     So my question is, since you
19   are -- indeterminate of the -- mounting that
20   column to that base with bolts going all the way
21   around, why can't that base be a little lower?
22   Maybe it won't have that big objection of such a
23   big box, at -- you know, at that level.
24                     Could that be a proverbial
0091
 1   six-inch curb, and it's something a little lower.
 2   I mean, when you are looking down the street, you
 3   know, you are not having to look around something.
 4   Is there a reason why that has to be
 5   four-foot-two?  I mean --
 6                MR. AMBRY:  Well, if you look at all
 7   of our new columns in the streets, they are up on
 8   concrete bases, because with the city with the
 9   salt, we are raising it because of the salt.  And
10   it does really make a difference on our structure
11   for rust.
12                MR. NAKAI:  I mean, you are talking
13   about that?  That's a threshold right there or is
14   the threshold --
15                MR. AMBRY:  Yes.  It is.  It's our
16   standard threshold, and if you go outside the door
17   here, you go anywhere, the new ones, they are up,
18   because you do not want steel against the ground
19   with our weather and especially with the road.
20   It's the salt.
21                MR. NAKAI:  All right.  I'm not
22   saying it was on the ground.  I am saying it was
23   on some pedestal, some curbing.  You know, but I
24   am just trying to -- you know, with
0092
 1   four-feet-eight by four-feet-eight, that's a good
 2   sized cube.  You know, I mean, -- so you boxed in
 3   the aerial beam, and that looks nice.
 4                MR. TANGORA:  It's bigger than these
 5   tables.
 6                MR. AMBRY:  No.  I agree with you,
 7   but that's the calculations for it.  You know, we
 8   got rid of the bracing up here.  So this has to be
 9   more fixed coming down, because this bracing is
10   out.  It's -- you know, there is torque on here.
11                MR. NAKAI:  Well, wait a minute.  If
12   you want to start talking in that language, I can
13   talk that language.  We are talking about --
14                MR. AMBRY:  Well, I am an architect,
15   and if -- you know, I worked with the structural
16   engineers who developed this design, and I mean,
17   I can talk to you a little bit about why we did,
18   because as an architect, I want this as thin and
19   as small as possible, but the structural engineers
20   are saying this is what they can do.
21                MR. NAKAI:  Right.
22                MR. AMBRY:  Believe me, I am more on
23   your side.  With dealing with structural
24   engineers, I am always arguing with them.
0093
 1                MR. NAKAI:  Right.  But what I am
 2   trying to say, Tom, is that the contribution to
 3   the increase in torsion on that column due to the
 4   taller exposed column --
 5                MR. AMBRY:  The taller part is the
 6   salt's problem.
 7                MR. NAKAI:  I'm sorry?
 8                MR. AMBRY:  The taller part is the
 9   --
10                MR. TANGORA:  The tall base.
11                MR. AMBRY:  The reason why the
12   height is, is because of the salt.  It's salt from
13   your salt trucks.
14                MR. NAKAI:  I mean, and is -- that
15   is the bare minimum?
16                MR. AMBRY:  Yes, because when you
17   plow, you get salt up here.
18                MR. NAKAI:  That's fine.  I
19   understand the words you are -- that's being
20   described.  Is that in a table of standards of
21   design in somebody's -- in the city of Chicago or
22   something?
23                MR. AMBRY:  You know, when you have
24   to replace these structures because of salt, they
0094
 1   are very, very expensive, and we have a live
 2   railroad up above, so --
 3                MR. NAKAI:  I understand that.
 4                MR. AMBRY:  We are not building
 5   these things for five years or ten years, and you
 6   are dealing with the public and people, and it's
 7   our responsibility for public safety, and we have
 8   to build these for 100 years.
 9                     So these details are 100-year
10   details.  These are not five-year details or a
11   ten-year warranty.  These are 100-year details,
12   because our system -- again, we are responsible
13   for the lives of people going on the tracks above.
14                MR. NAKAI:  I understand that, and
15   I --
16                MR. WILSON:  Is there anybody else
17   that has a comment about the beams from Option A
18   versus Option B?
19                MR. NAKAI:  Yeah.  I didn't finish
20   my thing about that.
21                MR. WILSON:  Yes, Gary?
22                MR. NAKAI:  Yeah, I like A -- I
23   mean, B.
24                MR. WILSON:  B?
0095
 1                MR. NAKAI:  I like B a lot.  I like
 2   B lot, and I am glad, and I applaud you for
 3   changing it from what it was at the last meeting.
 4                MR. WILSON:  Thank you, Gary.
 5                     Yeah, Mike?
 6                MR. KRUEGER:  What's the size of the
 7   column?
 8                MR. WILSON:  Of the column itself?
 9                MR. KRUEGER:  Yes, I am not sure of
10   that.
11                MR. AMBRY:  The column is
12   two-foot-three squared, approximately
13   two-foot-three squared.
14                MR. KRUEGER:  And the height?
15                MR. AMBRY:  To bottom it's 28 --
16   well, to the very top it's -- well, 32 feet from
17   here to here.
18                MR. KRUEGER:  So 32 from the very
19   top to the base.
20                MR. AMBRY:  And then this is -- you
21   know, I think it could be like -- it could be
22   fractions off.  These are rounding.  This is
23   five-five.
24                MR. TANGORA:  It's about 22 feet,
0096
 1   the narrow part.
 2                MR. KRUEGER:  And then what about
 3   the width of that actual girder that's coming
 4   across, the --
 5                MR. WILSON:  The box beam?
 6                MR. KRUEGER:  Yeah, the cross.  It's
 7   five-foot-five high.
 8                MR. AMBRY:  It's five-five, and it's
 9   about three-foot wide.
10                MR. TANGORA:  Before someone
11   declared it was two-foot-two, but that couldn't be
12   right.
13                MR. AMBRY:  Two-foot-two is the old
14   one.  The -- see, again, we've got that.  Yeah,
15   this is two-foot-two, but we have got to put the
16   cladding -- what's happening with the box girder
17   is -- structurally is this web here, the strength
18   of that web has -- you know, we bring it out to
19   the edges when you make it to the box.
20                     So it has to be -- not to get
21   complicated on you, but that's two-foot-two.
22   Sorry.
23                MR. WILSON:  Martin?
24                MR. TANGORA:  Could you tell me the
0097
 1   distance from each column base to the Berry
 2   building starting with the north based column?
 3                MR. AMBRY:  I don't have those
 4   numbers on me right now, but they are
 5   approximately nine feet.  Is that what --
 6                MS. MOREY:  And we have, I think,
 7   supplied you guys with a copy of the design
 8   drawings.  They are also on -- publicly available
 9   through our bid office.
10                MR. TANGORA:  I am kind of shocked
11   that you don't have that today, since that's what
12   this meeting is about.
13                MS. MOREY:  We said approximately
14   nine feet.
15                MR. KRUEGER:  Okay.  For both?
16                MR. AMBRY:  Yeah, it should be,
17   because they are -- the difference isn't that much
18   between the two.
19                MR. WILSON:  Jack?
20                MR. LAWLOR:  I think there are many
21   in this room that would appreciate another 106
22   meeting.
23                MR. WILSON:  Is this your closing
24   argument?
0098
 1                MR. LAWLOR:  No.  Because there are
 2   many other things from the initial meeting or the
 3   last one we had that aren't answered today.  You
 4   seized on this one, and in addition, to explore
 5   the idea raised by Alderman Cappleman and
 6   described by others, which bears some merit with
 7   the Commissioner of Transportation here to speak
 8   for himself on design ideas that would fit the
 9   circumstances.
10                MR. WILSON:  Okay.  Thank you.
11                     Well, I would like to thank the
12   consulting parties for being here.  I would also
13   like to thank the FTA and the Illinois Historic
14   Preservation Society for being -- contributing to
15   this conversation.
16                     The Wilson Station Project
17   obviously has a lot going for it, but we
18   understand what the issues are that the consulting
19   parties have brought to the table, and that's all
20   been made part of the record.  If there is
21   anything else that you would like to contribute to
22   this conversation and dialogue, by all means,
23   please feel free to contact us or bring it up
24   right now before we close the meeting.
0099
 1                MR. LAWLOR:  When will the
 2   environmental assessment be available and when
 3   will the hearing be on that?
 4                MS. MOREY:  We will be working with
 5   the FTA on that.  Obviously, we have to conclude
 6   the 106 process before we can move on and finalize
 7   the draft EA and hold a public hearing.
 8                MR. WILSON:  There are comment
 9   sheets here for anybody that would like to leave
10   additional comments that the court reporter hasn't
11   taken.
12                MR. TANGORA:  If we want to submit
13   written comments, how should we address them?
14                MR. WILSON:  You can address them to
15   www.transitchicago.com and Wilson Transfer Station
16   at the bottom of the screen.
17                MR. TANGORA:  Oh, the comments.
18                MR. WILSON:  Yeah, on the comment
19   sheet, too, Marty, is the address.
20                     Thank you, everybody.  We
21   appreciate your time and energy on this project.
22                  (END OF PROCEEDINGS.)
23   
24   
0100
 1   
 2         I, KARI WIEDENHAUPT, do hereby certify that
 3   the foregoing was reported by stenographic and
 4   mechanical means, which matter was held on the
 5   date, and at the time and place set out on the
 6   title page hereof and that the foregoing
 7   constitutes a true and accurate transcript of
 8   same.
 9         I further certify that I am not related to
10   any of the parties, nor am I an employee of or
11   related to any of the attorneys representing the
12   parties, and I have no financial interest in the
13   outcome of this matter.
14           I have hereunder subscribed my hand on the
15   ___ day of _____________ 2013.
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   _________________________
22   KARI WIEDENHAUPT, CSR
23   
24