P9750C.PDF

625

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

LIONEL TREPANIER, WES )

WAGER, MAUREEN COLE,

)

LORENZ JOSEPH,

)

MAXWORKS GARDEN

)

COOPERATIVE, and AVI

)

PANDYA,

)

) 6

Complainants, )

) 7

vs.

) PCB 97-50

) (Enforcement-Air, Citizens) 8

SPEEDWAY WRECKING

)

COMPANY and THE BOARD ) 9OF TRUSTEES OF THE

)

UNIVERSITY OF

)

ILLINOIS,

)

) 11

Respondents.

)

The following is the transcript of a

hearing held in the above-entitled matter, taken

stenographically by Gabrielle Pudlo, a Notary Public

within and for the County of Cook, State of

Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said

state, before John C. Knittle, Hearing Officer, at

100 West Randolph Street, Room 8-033, Chicago,

Illinois, on the 25th day of March, A.D., 1999,

commencing at the hour of 9:45 a.m.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

626

PRESENT:

HEARING TAKEN BEFORE: ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD 3

BY MR. JOHN C. KNITTLE

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3473

MR. LIONEL TREPANIER

MR. JOSEPH LORENZ

MS. MAUREEN MINNICK

appeared pro se;

ARNSTEIN & LEHR

BY MR. NORMAN P. JEDDELOH

120 South Riverside PlazaSuite 1200

Chicago, Illinois 60606-3910(312) 876-6928

appeared on behalf of the Respondent 14

The

Board of Trustees of the

University of Illinois;15

ADDUCCI, DORF, LEHNER, MITCHELL &

BLANKENSHIP, P.C.

BY MR. MARSHALL L. BLANKENSHIP150 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 2130Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 781-2800

appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Speedway Wrecking Company.21

ALSO PRESENT:22

Ms. Amy Muran-Felton23

Mr. James Henderson

Ms. Karen Kavanaugh24

Mr. Larry Kolko

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

627

I N D E X

_ _ _ _ _

MAUREEN_MINNICK

PAGE

_______ _______

____

Direct Examination By Mr. Trepanier .... 634

Cross-Examination by Mr. Blankenship ... 655 5

Redirect Examination By Mr. Trepanier .. 663

IRV_KOLKO

PAGE

___ _____

____

Direct Examination By Mr. Trepanier .... 664

Direct Examination By Mr. Joseph ....... 717 9

GUILLERMO_HERNANDEZ

PAGE

_________ _________

____11

Direct Examination By Mr. Trepanier .... 730 12

Direct Examination By Mr. Joseph .......

748

EXHIBITS_MARKED

PAGE

________ ______

____

Complainants' Exhibit No. 3 ............ 676

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

628

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: This is day three of

the Lionel Trepanier, et al., versus Speedway

Wrecking Company, the University of Illinois Board

of Trustees, Pollution Control Board No. 97-50.

Present today are Mr. Lionel Trepanier and Maureen

Minnick of the complainants. The remainder of the

complainants have failed to appear. The respondents

are both present and represented by counsel.

Mr. Trepanier, it is your witness.

MR. TREPANIER: Good morning.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We have to swear her

in. Are you going to call Ms. Minnick?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes, I am.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, can you

raise your right hand, please?

Swear her in.

(Oath offered.)

MS. MINNICK: I am going to make an exception to

that oath; that I will do that to the best of my

ability and that I realize that --

Will I be cross-examined in this testimony?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Yes. Chances are you

will be cross-examined.

MS. MINNICK: All right, excellent. Because

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

629

that is where I want to make the exception, of

course, that I will not be subjected to yes or no

questions that are designed to entrap me in some

way.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let me --

Is that all you want to say about it,

Ms. Minnick?

MS. MINNICK: No. I also want to make

reservation to the fact that I am guaranteed under

the Constitution not to have to incriminate myself.

It seems like that is the job of these persons here

is to trip me up some way, and they are already --

they have already drawn their conclusions of who I

am. They don't even know me; and it is pretty

obvious in their attitudes and gestures, mannerisms

that they think that we are quite the idiots here.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let me -- I don't want

any response right now. I am not going to let you

testify unless you testify subject to

cross-examination by these attorneys over here.

MS. MINNICK: I would not object to that as long

as it remains --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am not going to

limit their cross-examination.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

630

MS. MINNICK: Let me just say this: that, you

know, we have just gotten out of, like, some

horrible witch hunt with Ken Starr. I mean, no one

had any kind of --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Hold on, Ms. Minnick.

This isn't relevant.

MS. MINNICK: I'm just saying, you know, I don't

know where they want to go with all this; but --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Excuse me --

MS. MINNICK: -- let it just remain to the --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ma'am, are you going

to --

MS. MINNICK: -- subject.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: -- excuse me a second?

MS. MINNICK: Certainly.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: They can cross-examine

you about any testimony that you make on direct

examination.

MS. MINNICK: Okay. That is fair.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Now, I want you to

take the oath, though, that you swear to tell the

whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Let's do the oath again.

(Oath offered.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

631

MS. MINNICK: I do, to the best of my ability.

MR. JEDDELOH: I would object to the oath that

she has taken. I believe that it leaves her rub

room, and I do not believe that it is permitted

under the law.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, will you

just swear that you -- In the beginning of the oath,

it says --

How does it go, again?

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear that

the testimony you are about to give shall be the

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,

so help you God?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Are you saying that

you are not going to say I do to that particular

oath?

MS. MINNICK: All right. I do.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's do it all again

one last time. Let's swear you in one last time.

MS. MINNICK: I'm not easy.

(Witness sworn.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you,

Ms. Minnick.

Mr. Trepanier, your witness.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

632

MR. JEDDELOH: Mr. Knittle, for the record, of

course, the University has a continuing objection to

any testimony provided by this witness; but our

objections are of record.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: That is noted.

MR. JEDDELOH: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: Could the attorney make that

clear, what his continuing objection is? Somehow it

has gotten past me.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Do you want me to

summarize; or do you want to make it clear,

Mr. Jeddeloh?

MR. JEDDELOH: Well, I would be happy to say

again on the record that this witness has not

cooperated in the discovery process, and the

University's motion is of record. We believe that

the ruling from the Board is in error and we think

it is inappropriate for this witness to provide

testimony in light of the fact that she has not

cooperated in discovery.

MR. TREPANIER: Thank you.

MS. MINNICK: I am glad that that was mentioned.

May I say something?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

633

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object. There is

no question pending, Mr. Knittle.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right.

You are a witness right now; and although

you can offer argument as your own attorney, I would

prefer that we do that afterwards.

MR. TREPANIER: Before we get started, I would

like to check if Ms. Cole is interested to call

herself as a witness before me.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: That is fine, Ms. --

Minnick or Cole?

MS. MINNICK: Minnick.

MR. TREPANIER: Sorry.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: That's okay.

MS. MINNICK: No problem.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, do you

want to call yourself as a witness first?

MR. JEDDELOH: Could I propose that I think it

is going to make it go a lot easier if there is the

question and answer process because it will help

avoid narratives and help -- I think it will help

keep the testimony focused on the relevant issues.

I am impressed with Mr. Trepanier's ability to ask

questions and elicit relevant information; and so

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

634

therefore, I think that would be a useful process,

Mr. Knittle.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I agree, but

Ms. Minnick does have the right to call herself as a

witness, as well.

Perhaps you could do that after

Mr. Trepanier examines you.

MS. MINNICK: All right.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's do it that way,

then.

Mr. Trepanier, why don't you proceed?

MAUREEN MINNICK

having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Well, good morning. Thanks for taking your

time to come in and help make this matter clear for

the Pollution Control Board. I think they will have

an opportunity to look at your testimony and, you

know, weigh it for themselves.

Are you aware that there was a demolition

that occurred at 1261 South Halsted?

Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

635

In fact, you lived near that demolition

didn't you?

I worked nearby.

You worked nearby?

Right, and stayed in the area.

How close were you staying to that

demolition?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Object to the witness looking

at documents while she is testifying.

THE WITNESS: It is just a flier with a little

bit of --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I would ask that all documents

be removed.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, could you

push the documents aside, please?

I will sustain that objection.

THE WITNESS: Okay, documents removed.

I would say approximately a block or less.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

And what was the address of the place where

you were staying and working at the time?

That would be 717 West Maxwell.

Now, was there any other locations that you

were working at that --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

636

Yes. Also I have done work at 716 and also

Creative Reuse Warehouse on 13th Street and the

Garden at 13th and Union.

When you mention 716, is that 716 Maxwell?

Correct.

Is that also approximately -- you say a

block from the demolition site?

Correct.

Creative Reuse Warehouse, is that the same

Creative Reuse Warehouse that persons were

testifying to yesterday and is shown here on the

Complainants' Exhibit 1?

Yes, it is. And also -- I also would visit

and do a little work at the lumber yard adjacent to

it.

When you say the lumber yard --

Creative Reuse Warehouse.

-- you are referring to the yard next to

Creative Reuse Warehouse shown on the exhibit --

Correct.

-- labeled yard?

Okay. Now, you mentioned working at a

community garden. There is not a garden marked

currently on Exhibit 1. Can you point to the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

637

spot -- would the Garden -- is there a spot on this

exhibit where the Garden would be, approximately?

Well, it would be right over here, right

next to 716 and Union, bordered on Halsted and Union

and 13th Street.

Could you look at the exhibit again and

describe what the borders of the Garden are? I know

the first time you described it, you said Halsted

was one of the borders.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier,

Mr. Blankenship wants to approach the witness and

look at the exhibit that you are using.

MS. MINNICK: I said Halsted when I meant

Maxwell Street. It is in error. Thank you.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Could you again describe the borders of the

Garden?

Yes. The Garden is bordered on one side by

Union and the other side --

I see the map doesn't say Union -- the

exhibit doesn't say Union. Could you put the word

Union where you are saying?

Sure.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let the record reflect

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

638

that Ms. Minnick is marking on Complainants' Exhibit

No. 1.

Those are the three streets that it is

bordered by.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now, on this exhibit there is a large open

space along the top there. Is all of that the

Garden, or could you approximate the Garden?

Sure.

Remember, what we are doing, everything is

relative to 1261.

Right. So there is a big building right

across --

If you would, just mark the Garden.

Okay. Well, it would practically be off

the page, then, actually.

So this exhibit -- what you are saying, it

is a bit out of scale.

But from where you have marked Union and

where the Creative Reuse Warehouse is, if you use

those two landmarks and then mark where the Garden

is relative to those two locations --

Well, actually the Garden starts right at

the end of Creative Reuse, so there is -- like I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

639

said, Union really probably shouldn't be on there

because it is incorrect. Union would have to be on

the other side of the Garden, which is at the end of

Creative Reuse.

So that exhibit isn't useful to you to show

where the Garden is?

No. Actually --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Has the exhibit been

scratched out? Is that what just happened?

THE WITNESS: I just scratched out Union because

it can't possibly be there.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I want the record to

reflect, then, that the word Union was written on by

Ms. Minnick and then scratched out. In fact, you

can see that it is scratched out.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now, I appreciate your attempt here. I

didn't realize this, that the map wouldn't allow you

to mark the Garden on there.

Now, relative to the building at 1261 South

Halsted, could you describe for us where the Garden

is in some way?

It would be on the other side of 13th and

at the end of the block. It extends from the east

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

640

of 716 to the end of Union.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, when you

say on the other side of 13th, can you give a

direction so that we know what you are talking

about?

THE WITNESS: I did. I said on the east side of

716.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: On what side of 13th

Street does the Garden begin?

THE WITNESS: That side would be the south side.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Then could you give an approximate distance

from the east end of 1261 to the west end of the

Garden that you lived in?

Could you repeat the question?

Yes. I am just asking if you could give an

approximate distance --

Oh, distance.

-- from the east end of 1261 to the west

end of the Garden that you were working in.

I would say approximately maybe 20 feet;

25 feet, perhaps.

Twenty-five feet, you say?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

641

Oh, no, no, no, no. That would be way

too --

Maybe if I asked you some more questions --

Is it further than a block distance?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Object to the leading

question.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

It is a little short of a block. I would

say it is a big building short of a block.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

The big building short of the block, that

would be to the east end of the Garden?

Yes, that would be to the very end of it.

What about to the west end of the Garden?

Then it would be less again, even shorter.

So I would say that that might be a half a block.

A half block distance?

Yes.

Did you work at these four locations:

717 Maxwell; 716 Maxwell; Creative Reuse, including

the lot; and the Garden at the time of the

demolition of 1261 South Halsted?

Yes. You mean the lot as the lumber yard?

The yard, yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

642

Yes, that's correct.

Did you have an opportunity to view the

demolition site at 1261 while the job was in

process?

Yes. A couple times I saw it.

What brought you to -- when would you see

that? When did you see the site?

It has been a while, but I think it

probably --Well, no. Let's see. It would be when I

would be returning from work.

Okay. You were returning from work.

Was that some work that you had outside of

this neighborhood?

Yes.

Where was that?

1104 South Wabash.

How would you transport yourself from the

South Wabash site to the Maxwell neighborhood?

Generally I would go to -- I would walk

down Maxwell to Union and Union up to Roosevelt and

Roosevelt over to Wabash.

And how would you return?

Generally the same direction. But

sometimes I would get off at Halsted because they

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

643

wouldn't stop at Union. It wasn't a popular stop.

So sometimes they would take me down to Halsted, and

then I would just jump on the Halsted bus if it was

right there and get off at Maxwell. So at least

once I went by and saw they were working, tearing

down the building.

Did you have any -- Were you given any

notice that the building at 1261 Halsted was to be

demolished?

No.

Well, were you -- And you were present in

the neighborhood at the time prior to the demolition

of the building?

Yes.

And do you receive mail there at one of the

places that you stayed in the neighborhood?

Yes.

And that was --

716.

716, you received your mail?

Yes.

Now, when you did have an opportunity to

observe the work site, what do you recall that you

did observe?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

644

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, lack of foundation.

Could we have a little more foundation as to when

this observation occurred?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

Mr. Trepanier, try to lay some more

foundation, please.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

You testified that you had an opportunity

to view the demolition from Halsted Street; is that

right?

Yes, just riding by on the bus.

And when you would ride by on the bus, did

you have an opportunity to see the demolition site?

Yes.

Do you recall -- do you recall what was

occurring on the demolition site that you saw?

I honestly have to say that it looked like

every other demolition site at different various

stages, and I didn't see anything unusual from any

of the other ones. They all look kind of the same,

like a -- like maybe a bombed building.

When you were in the yard at the Creative

Reuse Warehouse, did you have an opportunity to view

the building at 1261?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

645

When I was where, again?

In the yard.

Oh, in the yard?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection. Could we have a time

frame? Was this during demolition, before

demolition, when?

THE WITNESS: During -- Oh, I'm sorry. You are

you are asking him.

MR. JEDDELOH: I was just raising an objection.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled. But try to

keep things a little more specific, Mr. Trepanier.

You can answer the question, Ms. Minnick.

You are asking me how it looked in the

yard?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Okay. I will ask the question again.

Did you have an opportunity -- was there a

time that you were in the Creative Reuse yard while

the demolition was occurring at 1261?

I don't think so.

Were you in the Garden while the demolition

was -- occurred at 1261?

I am not sure.

Let me clarify my question so that you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

646

understand. When I ask you if you were at a

location while the demolition occurred at

1261 Halsted, I am talking about any time between

the start of the demolition and the end of the

demolition.

It would have had to be a time that I was

on my way to Creative Reuse Warehouse and possibly

the yard, but I am thinking more that it was the

Creative Reuse Warehouse that I was going to.

Okay.

I didn't frequent that area.

So sometime during the demolition of

1261 Halsted, did you visit the Create Reuse

Warehouse?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection --

Yes.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: -- asked and answered.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

And where --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Excuse me. I am

sorry. I couldn't hear the question with the door

open.

Lionel, what was the question?

MR. TREPANIER: I asked, "If at a time during

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

647

the demolition of 1261 Halsted, did you visit the

Creative Reuse Warehouse?"

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. I think

you have already asked that, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

And where --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, when

there is an objection and it is sustained, you are

not supposed to answer the question, okay?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Excuse me.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

And did you -- How often did you visit that

Creative Reuse Warehouse?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, object. When he asked

that question, her answer was no five minutes ago.

I don't frequent that area. I did go over

there maybe one time.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Blankenship, I am

going to overrule your objection. I think the

board --

Or at least one time.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: -- will be able to

look at the transcript and note if there has been

differing answers on the specific question.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

648

BY MR. TREPANIER:

I have gotten a little bit confused, and I

don't know if I have asked poor questions; and I

suspect I did.

Now, did you visit the Creative Reuse

Warehouse more than one time during the demolition

of 1261 Halsted?

MR. JEDDELOH: Well, I am going to object

insofar as she previously testified she didn't visit

it at all. So therefore that would assume a fact

that is not evidence.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to

overrule, just as I overruled Mr. Blankenship's

objection. She has answered, to the best of my

knowledge, both ways at this point.

You can answer that question.

The question was?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

If you visited the Creative Reuse -- the

question was, did you visit the Creative Reuse

Warehouse more than once during the demolition at

1261 Halsted?

No, not to my knowledge. It has been a

long time.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

649

Did you ever have an -- was there ever a

time that you felt that -- was there a time when

debris from the demolition came onto your person?

MR. JEDDELOH: Well, I am going to object. That

is exceedingly, exceedingly leading.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

Ms. Minnick, you can answer the question.

There were times the dusts were heavy

enough that I think that that might be the case.

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to ask that that

response be stricken. She is clearly speculating.

She is not testifying as to factual matter in

response to his leading question.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Object to lack of foundation,

as well, to when this allegedly occurred.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will not grant your

motion to strike, but I would like -- I will sustain

the objection as to when this allegedly occurred.

Ms. Minnick, try to keep your answers

specific to the question and respond with as much

detail as you can, please.

Mr. Trepanier, perhaps you could ask

another question.

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

650

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you observe substances leaving the

demolition site at 1261 Halsted?

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object to that as

leading, too.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

Yes.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Would you describe what you saw?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, lack of foundation.

When did this occur, where was she standing, et

cetera?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Do you recall when you observed that?

Yesterday on the tape. Is that admissible?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to her testifying as

to what was on the tape. It is hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

MR. JEDDELOH: And I am also to going ask that

her previous response as to her observing substances

leaving 1261 be stricken because if she was

testifying about what she saw on the tape and not

what she saw from her own observation, that would

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

651

not be competent.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, were you

testifying previously about your own recollection or

as to what you saw on the tape yesterday?

THE WITNESS: Actually, I am not sure if I did

see anything flying off of the building.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: On your own, aside

from the tape?

THE WITNESS: Yes, correct.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Then we don't want you

to testify to things that you just saw on the

videotape. We want your testimony to be strictly

based on what you yourself --

THE WITNESS: I thought possibly that was

admissible.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: -- saw and heard.

THE WITNESS: But I will have to say, then, I

think I may have. So I am going to say no, that I

didn't because I am not sure.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Okay.

Mr. Trepanier, you can proceed. And to the

extent that Ms. Minnick was testifying based on her

knowledge of the videotape, I think that will be

reflected in the record. That should be stricken.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

652

It will be stricken.

Mr. Trepanier, you can proceed.

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

At the time of the demolition in September

of '96, how long had you been staying in the

neighborhood at 716 or 717 Maxwell?

At least four years, maybe more.

Are you registered to vote at that address?

Yes, I am.

During that four years, did you -- do you

recall receiving a notice from the University that

they intended to demolish a building?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection, asked and answered.

We have been through this, Mr. Knittle.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. I think

that has previously been asked, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you feel an injury in not being noticed

that the demolition was to occur?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection.

MR. JEDDELOH: I think he is -- he is not asking

this witness for facts. He is asking the witness to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

653

provide some sort of feeling or emotion, and I don't

think that is appropriate or relevant.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I object to the line of

questioning as irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, can you

please tell me why this is relevant?

MR. TREPANIER: Well, I feel that I needed to

raise these issues because these were issues very

important -- I know very important to the

complainant. So I am, you know, doing what I feel I

needed to bring her issue into the case.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Understood. However,

the lack of notice that she has testified to has

already been put on the record -- the alleged lack

of notice -- and I don't think anything further is

relevant. So I am going to sustain the objections.

MR. TREPANIER: All right.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q During that time of the demolition, were

you in the neighborhood on a daily basis?

A Yes.

Q When you were in the neighborhood, did you

observe any signage during the time of the

demolition that would have given warning that a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

654

demolition was occurring?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Let me just object to "the

neighborhood." I don't know what means in this

context. It could be a block; it could be ten

blocks. I am not sure what he means by that.

MR. TREPANIER: Let me define that first. I

will just reask the question and leave out the word

neighborhood and put in a better description.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

During the time of the demolition, did you

have -- Were you, on a daily basis, in the area of

Maxwell Street, 13th Street, Halsted, Union,

Roosevelt, the area -- Within that area, were you

there on a daily basis?

I was in the area of Union, Roosevelt, and

Maxwell on a daily basis.

On those streets did you see any signage

that would give warning that there was a demolition

occurring?

No. But I can also -- possibly have to be

real careful and make an exception of Sundays.

Maybe I wouldn't be there; but, you know, just a

work-week daily basis.

MR. TREPANIER: I have no further questions.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

655

THE WITNESS: The answer to that, did I give it

as no?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Yes. I think you gave

a sufficient answer, Ms. Minnick. Thank you. Do

you want to call yourself as a witness?

MS. MINNICK: I am not prepared to do that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Okay. Well, you have

been given that opportunity, and now you are subject

to cross-examination by Mr. Blankenship and

Mr. Jeddeloh.

Are you going to go first?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BLANKENSHIP:

Ms. Minnick, how old are you?

Fifty-six.

Are you presently employed?

No, I'm not.

At the time of the demolition, you were

employed by the University of Illinois; is that

right?

No.

Who were you employed by at the time of

demolition?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

656

J.C. Whitney.

Did you work Monday through Friday?

Yes.

What were your hours?

8:30 until 5:00; with overtime, too.

So as I understand it, the only time you

actually observed the demolition was when you were

riding home on the bus down Halsted Street; is that

right?

Correct.

That would have been after 5:30, right?

Let's see. Of course, yes.

The demolition -- There were no workers on

the site at 5:30 at that time, were there?

Most likely not.

What is your highest level of education?

Let's see. Graduate, you mean? High

school, I would say.

High school?

Yes. I do have some credits in college.

At the time of the demolition, you lived at

716 West Maxwell?

717.

So that is a block down -- south of 13th

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

657

Street, right?

Correct.

That is about a block east of Halsted?

It would be a block east of Halsted; not

quite an entire block from 13th because it is --

less than a block.

That space between 717 West Maxwell and the

demolition site is full of buildings, right?

Yes.

The Garden you referred to, that is

adjacent on its east side to Union Street, right?

Actually, it is to the west of Union.

I'm sorry, yes. The east border of the

Garden is on Union Street?

Correct.

And Union Street itself is parallel, next

to the Dan Ryan Expressway, right?

Yes.

And the west side of the Garden, actually,

is east of the end of the Creative Use [sic] Center?

That's correct.

So that is a couple hundred feet from

1261 Halsted, right?

A couple hundred?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

658

At least.

I am not very good at this, but I would say

that perhaps you are right.

In fact, there is not a direct line of

sight from the Garden to 1261 Halsted?

Yes. At certain points in the Garden, it

is.

But you are looking kitty-corner across

13th Street from several hundred -- it is not even

kitty-corner, right, because there is a gap of

hundreds of feet?

Yes.

And you have got buildings west of the

Garden on 13th Street?

There is only one large building.

Between the Garden and the site?

Yes.

And you have got the Creative Use Center

and its --

It would be on the south side.

Right, south side of 13th Street

And then on the north side, you have

Creative Reuse and the lumber yard.

Right, okay. Now, do you believe there is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

659

air pollution coming from the cars on the

expressway?

I am sure there is.

And they are driving on that expressway

24 hours a day, right?

MR. TREPANIER: I am going to raise an objection

that he is asking, apparently, for

Ms. Minnick to clarify operations of automobiles

that -- on an expressway; and he hasn't set a

foundation that Ms. Minnick has observed the

expressway 24 hours a day or has any special

knowledge about the pollution that comes from

automobiles.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Blankenship, do

you have a response?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, she lives in the

neighborhood. I assume she knows what is happening

on the expressway. I will ask her more questions

for foundation, if he wants that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. Please ask

some more questions.

BY MR. BLANKENSHIP:

You live right near the expressway, right?

Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

660

Have you had occasion to observe cars at

different times of the day on that expressway?

Yes.

Have you observed them in the early morning

hours between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.?

12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.? On rare

occasions.

Have you observed cars between 6:00 a.m.

and 5:00 p.m.?

Again, 6:00 --

6:00 a.m., the workday. Have you observed

cars on the expressway during the day?

6:00 a.m. is too early. I didn't leave

until 7:30.

There are a lot of cars on that expressway,

aren't there?

Oh, yes, early in the morning and rush

hour, of course.

And those cars are on there 365 days a

year, aren't they?

Yes. But it -- Like, if you are trying to

say that it is nonstop, it isn't. There are times

that it is very quiet.

Sometimes it is quieter, but a lot of times

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

661

there is a lot of traffic?

Rush hour, always.

Okay. Just to make sure I understood your

testimony, you are not sure if you ever saw any dust

emanating from the 1261 property, right?

Correct.

You have been involved in protests against

the University; is that correct?

MR. TREPANIER: Object. She didn't testify on

direct at all about protesting the University.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: It just goes to her

credibility as a witness.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

I don't think so.

BY MR. BLANKENSHIP:

No?

Is there anything specific that you are

asking me about --

No.

-- because I don't remember one.

Okay. Pollution aside, you have a concern

about the University's demolitions in the area,

don't you?

A concern, yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

662

You don't like how they are destroying your

neighborhood, basically, right?

I don't think of it necessarily as my

neighborhood, but I guess that it is. I think more

of us as a cooperative. The neighborhood was pretty

gone before we even arrived.

Do you disagree with the further --

pollution aside, do you disagree with the further

demolitions in the area?

May I clarify on what I think? It is not a

yes or no. I think maybe some buildings need to go,

and others I think are a shame to waste.

And when you filed your complaint in this

action, your concern was to stop the University from

demolishing other buildings in this area, wasn't it?

On the basis that it was polluting.

Even though you hadn't seen any dust from

the demolition at that time at 1261 Halsted?

MR. TREPANIER: Objection.

Correct.

MR. TREPANIER: My objection is that the -- it

hasn't been established that there was or was not

pollution prior to the filing of this complaint.

There has been no testimony to that.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

663

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Objection, overruled.

I don't think that was what the question asked; and

Ms. Minnick, I think, already answered the question.

But maybe you could state it again. I don't know if

the court reporter got it.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Can you read it back, then,

please?

(Question read.)

Yes.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: That is all the questions I

have.

MR. JEDDELOH: I don't have any questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When you testified that you believe that

some buildings need to go, were you referring to

1261 Halsted?

I don't know. I don't know much about that

building, why they wanted to demolish it, what their

reasons were. It didn't look like a building to me

that couldn't have been saved. A lot of them I see

that way.

MR. TREPANIER: No other questions. Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

664

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, thank you

very much.

Is there any further from this side?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: No.

MR. JEDDELOH: No.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you very much

for your testimony.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Mr. Kolko should be here. If

we can take a couple minutes, I will go find him.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's take a couple

minutes' break.

(Brief recess taken.)

(Enter Mr. Joseph.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: I would like to call Irv Kolko.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Would you swear the

witness, please?

(Witness sworn.)

IRV KOLKO

having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Good morning, Mr. Kolko. I appreciate your

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

665

taking time to come in and answer my questions. I

am going to ask some questions about your background

with your business and then some questions about a

certain demolition at 1261 Halsted. So you can just

answer as you are able to recall.

How long have you -- What is your

relationship with Speedway Wrecking Company?

I am the president of Speedway Wrecking

Company.

How long have you been in that position?

Probably 15, 20 years.

Did you have an association with Speedway

prior to being president?

Yes.

What position was that?

It is a family business.

How long has the business been in your

family?

In my particular family? The family

business goes back to the 1920s.

How long have you been involved with

Speedway?

Approximately 40 years.

How many demolitions have you been on-site

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

666

with Speedway?

I have no idea. Many.

Can you make an approximation?

No.

In a year how many may occur?

It depends on the year. I have no idea. I

don't have a running count of the jobs that we do.

Is there any way that you could communicate

to me and for the Board about how many demolitions

that you have been involved in?

No. Many.

I'm understanding what you are saying.

If you are asking me for an exact count, I

have no idea of an exact count how many buildings.

There have been hundreds of them.

Would there be hundreds of buildings in one

year?

No.

Two years?

No.

In five years?

Possibly.

Is it possible that there were more than

hundreds in five years?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

667

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, asked and answered.

He is going around on this.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Are you concerned with dust emanating from

demolitions?

Yes, I am.

Why are you concerned?

Why am I concerned? Because it can be

considered a health hazard, and there are laws that

govern it.

Do you consider demolition dust to be a

health hazard?

No.

Why is that?

Because our buildings are watered down. We

control the dust. We cannot eliminate dust. We try

to minimize to the best of our ability.

Is it a Speedway policy to leave a foreman

in charge at a job site?

Yes.

What instructions does the foreman receive

when --

What instructions?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

668

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to the lack of

foundation; what job this is relating to and whether

this witness had involvement in the management of

this job.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, perhaps

you could give some more background questions before

we get there.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q Have you given instructions to your foremen

in the past?

A Yes.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. We have already

had testimony that it was Larry Kolko who was in

charge of this job; and if we are talking about

other Speedway jobs, it is not relevant and there

has been no foundation that Mr. Kolko was involved

in giving instructions to the foreman on 1261.

We are getting real far afield, and this is

a witness who has very limited knowledge of this

particular demolition.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, the attorney is

testifying.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to

overrule.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

669

You can ask the question, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Have you given instructions to your foremen

in the past?

In the past?

Yes.

I am sure I have.

What instructions did you give them?

It would strictly depend on the type of job

that we were doing.

Did you see the building at 1261 Halsted?

Yes, I did see it.

In that instance what instructions did you

give him?

I did not give him instructions. I was not

in charge of that job.

I am asking you to relate that to your

response on it depends on what type of a building.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, objection. Now he says

he is not involved with 1261. Now we are, in fact,

far afield if we are not talking about 1261.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, how do

you respond to that?

MR. TREPANIER: I am responding because I am

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

670

interested in -- we do know that now they left the

foreman in charge; and I am asking, you know, what

instructions -- The man has been with the company

40 years, and if somebody is going to know what

instructions they give --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: But he has testified

that he wasn't in charge of the building at 1261.

MR. TREPANIER: I don't think he has. That was

the attorney who testified.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: He just testified to that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, perhaps

you could ask that question again. I think you have

already asked it, but I will allow you to ask it

again.

MR. TREPANIER: It is not the question that I am

going to choose to ask.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Then I am going to ask

you to move on from this line of questioning.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you see the bid and plan for the

demolition at 1261 Halsted?

The bid and plan?

Yes.

I believe I did.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

671

Did that bid and plan call for a canopy to

be installed?

Yes, it did.

What is the purpose of that canopy?

To protect the public from falling debris.

What if a brick hits that canopy? Would it

fall to the street?

I doubt it.

Why not?

Because that is what the canopy is there

for, to protect the brick from falling onto the

sidewalk or into the street.

That canopy doesn't have any other

purposes, does it?

What do you mean by other purposes?

Other than to protect the pedestrians from

falling objects.

No.

Does the canopy have a piece that is a

backsplash?

Where are you referring to?

On the canopy.

Where on the canopy? On the top? On the

bottom? Where are you referring to?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

672

Is there more than one place there may be a

backsplash on a canopy?

There could be.

Did you see the demolition site at 1261

while the job was in process?

I believe I stopped by there.

Did you see a canopy when you were there?

Yes.

Was there a backsplash on that canopy?

I believe there was.

Was that above or below?

I believe we had a backsplash on the

bottom.

That would be underneath the canopy?

That's correct.

That canopy didn't -- that canopy didn't go

all the way around the building, did it?

No. It was strictly on the Halsted Street

side; and I believe there was a turn, but I am not

quite certain if the canopy extended back on

13th Street or not.

This canopy didn't control dust at this

demolition, did it?

No.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

673

I understand that you believe that the

Speedway demolition didn't create a health hazard

because you controlled the dust; is that correct?

Would you repeat that?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I am going to object to the

form of the question. What Mr. Trepanier

understands is not a proper question.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. Rephrase

the question, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

It is true, isn't it, if demolition dust

left 1261 that it would be a health hazard?

I can't answer that.

You did state that the demolition -- that

you are concerned that demolition dust can be a

health hazard.

No. I think I stated that I think that

was, if you check the record. I think you asked me

if demolition dust was a health hazard, and I said I

didn't think so.

Why is that, that you think it is not a

health hazard?

It is common dust.

You are concerned about demolition dust,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

674

aren't you?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Asked --

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection, relevancy.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled, relevancy.

What was your objection?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Asked and answered, I believe.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

Mr. Trepanier, you have asked that question

before.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When demolition dust generally concerns

you, why are you not concerned about the demolition

dust at 1261 Halsted?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, misstates his

testimony, vague question.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

MR. TREPANIER: On which grounds?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am sustaining it

because I think you are misstating his testimony.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Do you have a concern about the -- did you

have a concern about the demolition dust that could

be created at 1261 Halsted?

Did I have a concern? We use water to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

675

control the dust. We do not eliminate dust. We try

to minimize the dust on all our jobs.

Why do you attempt to minimize the dust?

Because that is what the regulations state.

Which regulation is that?

The EPA regulations, City of Chicago

regulations.

Are those regulations cited on the

application for this demolition?

Well --

Maybe I can do some background.

Did you see -- did you review the

application for demolition?

No.

MR. TREPANIER: I am going to ask the witness to

look at document UI-571 and ask him to identify the

signature of the wrecking contractor.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Are you marking this

as an exhibit?

MR. TREPANIER: I will mark it as an exhibit.

This is a series of documents, but just for

clarity I will keep them together.

MR. JEDDELOH: Can we have the Bates range on

that, please?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

676

MR. TREPANIER: 571 to 576.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Do you want an exhibit

marker?

MR. TREPANIER: Thank you. I will mark this

Exhibit 3.

(Complainants' Exhibit

No. 3 marked as requested.)

MR. TREPANIER: I am going to take it over to

show the attorneys.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I would just note for the

record that this exhibit appears to be several

different unrelated documents all stapled together.

I don't want there to be any confusion about that.

MR. TREPANIER: For clarity, I will state that

571 is titled "Application for Wrecking Permit."

572, the title is unclear; various information about

the building at 1261 Halsted on a computer printout.

573 is a letter to Mr. Kolko from James Henderson

regarding the demolition at 1261. 574 is titled

"Wrecking Permit Addendum."

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Which Mr. Kolko on the

previous document?

MR. TREPANIER: Not specified.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I guess I will object to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

677

characterizing the document. Can you show them to

the witness and see if the witness can identify

them?

MR. TREPANIER: Well, I think the attorney

claimed that these were unrelated documents. I just

stated that 574 is "Wrecking Permit Addendum."

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I object to him reading what

the documents are. I said they appear to be

unrelated documents, and I didn't want there to be

confusion. I don't know that that calls for

Mr. Trepanier to testify as to what the documents

are. He can show them to the witness and see if the

witness recognizes them.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. Why don't

you give what you want to give to the witness,

Mr. Trepanier? Tell me what you are giving to him,

which specific document.

MR. TREPANIER: I am specifically giving him

document 571, and I am asking him to identify the

signature for wrecking contractor.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q Now, that is your signature, isn't it, sir?

A That's correct.

Q Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

678

MR. TREPANIER: Again, I am going to hand it

back to the witness.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Could you -- would you read that document

at paragraph No. 9?

You want me to read it?

Yes, if you would.

"We hereby certify that the statements in

this application are true and correct and to the

best of our knowledge we believe it; and that all

work under the proposed permit will conform to the

Municipal Code of the City of Chicago. Removal of

asbestos must be in conformance with the Asbestos

National Emissions Standard."

BY MR. TREPANIER:

So there is no mention here of any state

requirements for your demolition activity; isn't

that correct?

Would you repeat that question?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. The document

speaks for itself. If this is impeachment, I don't

know what he is trying to impeach.

MR. JEDDELOH: I would add the relevancy

objection. Why is that relevant?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

679

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: I want to establish that there

are no state requirements, no specific regulations

that Mr. Kolko had to rely on.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, that is not the way to

do it. That is ridiculous, to show him his

application, allegedly in support of an argument

there are no requirements for a demolition. That

doesn't make any sense.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Can I see the

document?

Mr. Trepanier, I am still not entirely sure

how you are intending to accomplish what you are

seeking to prove. What exactly are you trying to do

with that?

MR. TREPANIER: Well, one, I have established

that Irv Kolko applied for the wrecking permit for

this job. So that is other than was earlier claimed

that, you know, he wasn't in charge of this job.

He, in fact, applied for the permit.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. That is not what

that shows. He applied for a wrecking permit.

We'll stipulate to that.

MR. TREPANIER: Beyond that, I want to go into

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

680

that area which -- when Speedway relies on that they

followed the rules of the State in doing their

demolition, I am wanting to establish that that is a

misplaced reliance because there are no rules from

the State.

MR. JEDDELOH: Then this case should be

dismissed.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I would object to that whole

line of questioning. The foundation that has been

laid so far is that Mr. Kolko drove by the site and

observed that he was not in charge of the site and

that, although he applied for the wrecking permit,

this was not his job. So why we are asking him

questions about the conduct of the demolition is

totally irrelevant from this witness; no foundation

at all.

MR. TREPANIER: I can respond to what --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Please respond.

MR. TREPANIER: -- Marshall is bringing in with

a couple of questions to the witness, if I might.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will let you ask the

question; but if I don't think it is going to clear

things up, I am going to not allow him to answer it.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

681

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q When this demolition -- You are aware that

this demolition caused damage to the neighboring

property, aren't you?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, relevance.

MR. JEDDELOH: -- foundation.

MR. TREPANIER: This is going to go into his

knowledge of what occurred at this demolition.

MR. JEDDELOH: Well, we haven't established his

knowledge base.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to sustain

the objection.

You can try to rephrase that,

Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q You do know that the demolition resulting

from your application here -- the demolition that

followed your application damaged the adjacent

property, are you not?

MR. JEDDELOH: Same objection. There is no

foundation for that. He testified he was at the

site perhaps once. That is not sufficient.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

682

overrule, allow him to answer if he knows that.

Would you ask me the question again?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

You are aware that the demolition at

1261 Halsted resulted in damage to the adjacent

property, are you not?

No, I am not aware of that.

You did write a letter to Mr. Henderson

regarding that damage to the property, did you not?

No, not regarding the damage to the

property.

MR. JEDDELOH: Well, let me interpose with an

objection. I'm sorry. I thought we were talking

about a different kind of damage. If he is talking

about some purported damage to another building next

door by some equipment, then that is not relevant to

this proceeding; and we have already established

that, Mr. Knittle.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to sustain

that. He answered that he wasn't aware of any

damage.

Let's move on, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: I'm just a little bit flustered

because I had a letter from Mr. Kolko where he

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

683

addressed this very damage, and I have misplaced it.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to him making --

sharing his thought process with us on the record,

as if it is some kind of testimony.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

MR. TREPANIER: If I might have a few minutes to

gather my thoughts together.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I am going to object. This is

what we were concerned about when he listed

15 Speedway employees as witnesses, and Mr. Kolko

wasn't even one of those 15. He is bringing in

people he has no idea what their knowledge is. He

is asking them questions out of the blue. This is

an entire fishing expedition. It is ridiculous.

And now we are five minutes into the exam, and he

needs a break to compose his thoughts. This case

has dragged on for two and a half days, and we are

not going to finish today. This is ridiculous.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I agree. Let's move

on, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: I would like to respond to what

he is saying, is the fact that although Irv applied

for the wrecking permit and was involved in this,

Irv's name was not mentioned in discovery at all in

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

684

the 15 names. They didn't even turn over Irv

Kolko's name, so his claim that I didn't know --

that I am surprised by some testimony; well, that

can be brought -- responsibility for Speedway for

not even disclosing this person during discovery.

MR. JEDDELOH: Let me join in the objection of

Speedway and just mention in doing so that

Mr. Trepanier received a copy of a document he is

using in December of 1997 and had plenty of time to

figure out that the current witness signed the

application. He has no basis to argue surprise.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Did you have a

response?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: The testimony is he was not

involved in this demolition. This was Larry Kolko's

responsibility. He signed a wrecking permit

application because it is an administerial act of

the company. This is -- He has now established that

he has no knowledge of this except for the time he

visited the job.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to ask you

to move on, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q Did you visit this job site only once? You

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

685

vis- -- Let me scratch that question.

You visited this job site more than once,

didn't you?

I believe so.

How many times?

I have no idea.

How long did the demolition proceed?

I don't have the dates in front of me. I

can't give you an answer right now.

Do you recall approximately when the job --

If you got the sheets, you could tell me.

I don't remember. I mean, I believe you have the

sheets. I don't remember.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Kolko, please

answer if you can; and if you don't remember, say

you don't remember.

I don't remember.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When you did visit the site, what was your

business there?

What was my business there? It was our

wrecking job. I stopped by to see the progress of

the job. It was short visits.

What were you looking at when you were

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

686

present?

At the demolition.

If demolition is surrounded by -- Scratch

that.

Prior to applying for a permit to rent

1261 Halsted, did you look at the building?

I don't recall.

The permit does describe the building, does

it not?

Yes.

When you signed this, you swore that

information was correct, did you not?

Yes.

Is it possible, then, that you signed --

you swore the information was correct without

knowing if it was correct?

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object as to what

is possible.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain that.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Do you know if you signed this permit,

swearing the information was correct, without

knowing it was correct?

No. That was signed -- I sign most of the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

687

applications. I don't always visit all of the jobs.

I sign as an officer of a corporation.

Did you read the document before you signed

it?

I try to read all documents.

So you would have read the paragraph 9

certification?

Yes. That is a standard application.

But you wouldn't necessarily answer that

truthfully?

I would what?

You wouldn't necessarily answer that

truthfully.

I wouldn't necessarily answer it

truthfully, or I would necessarily answer it

truthfully?

My question is, you wouldn't necessarily

answer that truthfully, would you?

My answer is, I would answer that

truthfully, yes.

How could you answer it truthfully if you

don't visit the sites before you sign the

applications?

Because you don't have to, because I have

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

688

an estimator that does -- there are plot plans.

That is all it requires.

Q What information is on the plot plan?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I am going to object to the

relevancy. This has nothing to do with whether

there was dust, whether the dust was pollution,

whether there was an effect of the dust.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain that.

I don't see how this is relevant, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, it was relevant in the way

that I was attempting to impeach the witness that he

hadn't visited the site before the demolition

started.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: But he has explained

why he signed the document and the steps he took.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, he has relied on a plot

plan. He said plot plan, but I should have some

opportunity to inquire into what information is in a

plot plan.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I don't see how this

is relevant to the case before us, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: It is springing from my

impeachment.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I would object to impeachment

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

689

on a collateral issue. This is ridiculous now. Can

we get to the substantive issue?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: This has been going on

for a while. I want to you move on to a more

substantive issue.

MR. TREPANIER: Okay.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When you visited the demolition site, did

you exit your vehicle?

On occasion; once or twice, maybe. I don't

remember.

When you visited the site, did you have

opportunity to travel on Halsted Street?

I am sure I did.

Now, you figure demolitions differently,

don't you, if they are surrounded by people and

buildings?

Yes.

How are they figured differently when

surrounded by people and --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to the relevance.

There is no testimony this witness figured this job.

That was Mr. Mergener yesterday. We went through

all this. This witness stopped by the site on a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

690

couple of occasions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

Mr. Trepanier, you can ask.

And you can answer to the extent of your

knowledge.

Would you repeat the question?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

How is the demolition planned differently

if it is surrounded by people and buildings?

Every job is different. Every job is

different, depending on the means that you use to

wreck the structure.

Now, if the structure is surrounded by

people and buildings, how is it different?

I don't know what you mean by "surrounded

by."

That was something that Mr. Mergener

described, a situation.

I can't speak for his testimony. I don't

know what he told you.

Did you have an opportunity to see Halsted,

the front of this building at 1261?

Yes.

Did you recognize that as a commercial

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

691

district?

A commercial district?

Yes.

If that is what you want to call it, yes.

Did you see people on the street when you

were there?

On the street? No. I saw them on the

sidewalk.

Then given that there is traffic on the

sidewalk and in a commercial district, how do you

figure that demolition differently?

You have already stated there was a canopy

on Halsted Street. The top was removed by hand for

public safety.

When you say that the top was removed by

hand, how many floors is that?

I don't recall; possibly two.

When it is -- when you say removing by

hand, that doesn't include a bobcat, does it?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, I am going to object

again. Now, if we are asking for testimony about

this particular job, I would like some foundation

with respect to that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

692

MR. TREPANIER: My question is going to hand

wrecking.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Re-ask the question.

Rephrase it, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Hand wrecking doesn't mean wrecking with a

bobcat, does it?

Yes, it does, in conjunction with hand

wrecking. It is like a wheelbarrow.

Could you describe how it is like a

wheelbarrow?

It has a bucket in the front and it moves.

And how is that bucket and the movement

used?

By a man sitting in the bobcat.

What does he do with that?

What does he do with it?

Yes.

He picks up loose debris with it, and

sometimes he will knock over a small wall with it.

That is not hand wrecking, is it?

Yes, it is.

Which -- is there any -- Knocking over a

wall with a bobcat creates a lot of dust, doesn't

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

693

it?

No, not if there is water on it.

How long does the water stay on the wall?

Yes.

I have no idea what the man on the job --

the hose is running.

So when knocking down walls with bobcats --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Kolko, I have to

advise you to keep your answers succinct and try to

contain yourself on the stand.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I have a plane to catch

later this afternoon.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I understand.

I don't think we are going to be too much

longer, are we, Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: It is taking a little bit longer

than I thought.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Then I would suggest we ask

some relevant questions; again, about the demolition

itself, for which there is no foundation, or

something that has to do with this particular site,

of which this witness has knowledge.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, I would

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

694

advise you to try to ask relevant questions; and I

do think that the use of the bobcat, I don't see how

that is clearly relevant to this case.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, we did have testimony

yesterday that a bobcat was used in this demolition.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right. But how is

that relevant to the alleged violation at this site?

I want you to try to tie this together and get

moving on this.

MR. TREPANIER: Okay.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When knocking down walls with a bobcat,

those walls need to be wetted, don't they?

Yes.

And those walls need to be constantly

wetted, don't they?

I don't know what you mean by constantly

wetted. Sometimes you will put enough water on a

wall and you will have no dust whatsoever. You

don't have to wet it down anymore, depending on the

condition of the mortar.

This was an old building, wasn't it?

I don't remember the date.

You wouldn't be surprised if this building

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

695

was 80 years old, would you?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. The relevance of

that, this is --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. He has

testified that he doesn't know how old the building

was, Mr. Trepanier.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now, the mortar on an old building requires

more watering, doesn't it?

I have no idea.

Then how could you say that it depends on

the condition of the mortar?

Because it could have been tuck pointed.

Is it your testimony that a tuck pointed

wall needs less watering?

It could.

It is also true, isn't it, that a wall in

poor repair needs more watering?

I can't say that.

When you reviewed the plan for the

demolition at 1261 Halsted, was there anything there

that you saw that was figured differently for the

people and the commercial district beyond what you

have testified to; the canopy?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

696

MR. JEDDELOH: Object as to form.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

Would you repeat your question, please.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Yes. When you reviewed the plan for

demolition at 1261 Halsted, was anything figured

differently considering the -- for the persons and

the commercial district, other than the canopy that

you testified to earlier?

I think I stated that we took a story or

maybe two stories down by hand.

When you say they took them down by hand,

you mean they may have used a mechanical bobcat,

don't you?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, asked and answered.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Speedway has used a building's interior

stairwell as a chute to carry demolition debris,

haven't they?

On occasion, yes.

Speedway didn't do that on this occasion,

did they?

I believe we used an inside stairwell and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

697

we used the outside.

Which was used during the hand wrecking

stage?

I wasn't there that often.

Did you observe the interior stairwell

being used as a chute?

I don't remember that.

Were you inside this building at all during

the demolition?

I don't believe I was.

So you would have no information on whether

an interior stairwell was used as a chute?

I believe it was because it was filled when

I saw it from the outside.

I have an exhibit, Complainant's Exhibit 1.

On this exhibit, this square is to represent the

building. This is to be Halsted Street; and this,

13th.

Could you show me on the exhibit where you

observed the interior stairwell from the outside of

the building?

If you are asking me on 13th Street, I

believe the stairwell was in the front. There was a

stairwell right here (indicating).

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

698

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's let the record

reflect that the witness is pointing to the

intersection of 13th and what is labeled as alley,

it looks like.

Areaway, alley, whatever he wants to call

it. You can't get through, so I don't know

what it

is.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right.

MR. TREPANIER: Thank you.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

How much debris did you see in that

stairwell?

How much debris?

Yes.

I have no idea what you mean by how much.

I can't quantify the amount of debris in the

stairwell.

Was the stairwell full?

From what I saw from the street, it

appeared to be full.

You didn't see anybody put debris into that

stairwell, did you?

No.

You don't know if anybody put debris in

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

699

that stairwell on purpose, do you?

No.

It doesn't cost Speedway anything to put

debris in -- to use the stairwell as a chute, does

it?

What do you mean by cost?

You don't have to pay anyone to use the

stairwell?

No, no. That's correct.

The exhibit that I showed you earlier that

you read the paragraph 9 certification, that

required compliance with Part 61 of the federal

regulations, did it not?

Yes, it did.

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection. The document can

speak for itself.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled. He has

already answered.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

I have a video that we created, of which I

would like you to observe a few minutes of that; and

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask

you.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: As a preliminary matter, I am

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

700

going to object to any questions asking this witness

to render opinions on what is on the video if there

is no foundation established that he was there on

that day. He should not be allowed to turn the

respondent into his expert witness, having failed to

designate an expert witness. I think that would be

totally unfair. This is not a person who was

involved in the demolition.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, I disagree. This is in

fact the person who has applied for the permits for

this demolition. It is somebody who saw the

demolition. And it is somebody with 40-plus years

of experience with Speedway demolitions.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: It sounds to me like he is

trying to get an expert opinion, and I don't think

that is proper. They did not designate an expert

witness. If he is just asking him to characterize

what is on the tape, the tape speaks for itself.

Those are not proper questions of this witness.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to

overrule. I am going to see what the questions are

that Mr. Trepanier may or may not ask. If they

appear to be improper, I will disallow them.

And I would ask you, Mr. Blankenship, if

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

701

you have an objection to a specific question to

raise it at that point.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I will.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Kolko, can you see

the TV?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can see.

(Discussion off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We are back on the

record, looking at the videotape which is

complainants' Exhibit No. 2.

Do you want to start the tape?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes. Okay. Just let the tape

run now.

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Do you recognize that building?

Not yet.

Do you recognize the activity that is

occurring?

It looks like the building is getting

wrecked.

That dust that -- that wheelbarrow dumping,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

702

that dust is not being controlled, is it?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection now. He has

testified that he doesn't recognize the building, so

there is no foundation he knows anything at all

about what is going on on the tape. So I object to

him asking him about what is going on on the tape

without the witness having the context of where this

is, what has been done, et cetera.

MR. JEDDELOH: I will also join in the objection

and further state that I think he is asking for

commentary on a tape that anyone can look at.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

I would like to -- Now, do you see the

space between the two buildings on this video?

MR. TREPANIER: Could you hit the pause, please?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Do you see tallest building in the video,

near the center?

Yes.

And another billing to the left of that?

Yes.

And there is a space in between those two,

isn't there?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

703

It appears to be, yes.

Now, that is 13th Street?

Yes.

Now, that is the building you applied for a

demolition permit for, isn't it?

If that is 13th Street and if that is

1261 Halsted, yes, that is the building.

And what we see going on here is hand

wrecking activity, is it not?

I can't see right now.

MR. TREPANIER: Go ahead and let that video run,

please.

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now, somebody is dumping a wheelbarrow off

the roof there, aren't they?

It appears to be.

And the dust is flying away, isn't it?

I can't --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to his

characterization of the videotape. It speaks for

itself.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

704

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

That dust is not being controlled, is it?

MR. JEDDELOH: Same question, same objection.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: And foundation as well.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain it.

Mr. Trepanier, you have asked that question

before. This witness has testified that he

doesn't -- wasn't available and he wasn't at this

demolition site on more than one or two occasions

and didn't participate in any meaningful way in any

dust control that would have occurred.

MR. TREPANIER: I am asking him if there is a

dust control measure being practiced.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I will object. How can he

know what was done on this job, if water was applied

or whatever. We don't know. He wasn't there.

There is no foundation for him to give that

testimony.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to overrule

it.

If you know how the dust was controlled at

the site, Mr. Kolko, you can answer.

I will state that water is on all our

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

705

sites. This particular site, there was water the

few times I was there. That is all I can state.

MR. TREPANIER: Would you hold the video for a

moment?

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When you were on-site and you saw the

water, where was that water?

Where was the water?

Yes.

There is a hydrant on the corner of 13th

and Halsted, on the southeast side.

Was the water at any other location than

the hydrant?

Not that I am aware of. We had a hose

hooked up to it.

Where was that hose when -- Did you observe

a hose?

Yes.

Where was that hose?

I believe the hose was running, upstairs.

What time of day did you observe that?

I have no idea. I have no recollection of

that. I don't keep a log.

Did you observe a hose more than once?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

706

I was only there on a couple occasions.

The two occasions I was there, I observed a water

hose.

On the occasion that you didn't testify to,

where did you see the water hose?

Would you repeat that?

On the occasion that you didn't describe

already, where did you see the water hose?

On the occasion I --

Didn't describe.

You had described one occasion. I believe

you said you saw the water hose go into the

building?

Right.

Now, on the second occasion that you saw

the water hose --

When we were wrecking with a crane, we had

it on the ground.

Is it Speedway's practice to have the hose

upstairs when you are doing the hand wrecking?

If we can control the water better, that is

the way we try to do it.

We saw these wheelbarrows dumping dry

debris, didn't we?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

707

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. There is no

foundation that he knows what was in the contents of

those wheelbarrows.

MR. JEDDELOH: Again, he is asking the witness

to comment on a piece of evidence that anyone can

view.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will allow this

question.

Did I see what?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Can we read the question back?

(Question read.)

I have no idea that it was dry debris or

wet debris.

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now we see the video now at 12:42 p.m.

What is that that is there between us on -- in front

of that building on this video?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, lack --

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection as to foundation.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain it.

That is a pretty vague question, too, Mr. Trepanier.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

708

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Does wet debris act differently than dry

debris when dumped?

I am sure it does.

How is it that it acts differently?

How is it?

In what way?

It probably falls straight down.

So --

Most of it would fall straight down.

So if a wheelbarrow is dumped and most of

the -- and the debris doesn't fall down, that debris

is not wet, is it?

That doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

Well, how is that since you testified that

wet debris would fall down?

Because you cannot saturate every particle

of debris when you are wetting it. The entire -- is

not saturated. There will be some that is not

saturated.

So Speedway didn't wet -- Speedway doesn't

wet the debris before they dump it off, do they?

That is incorrect. We do wet the debris

before we dump it off.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

709

Q But if the debris was wet, it would fall

straight down, wouldn't it?

A I just stated --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, asked and answered

and also foundation as to this job.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

MR. TREPANIER: Would you run the video some

more?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. May I ask a question?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: Do you have any idea how much

longer this is going to go on? I have to catch a

plane, and I have to do some things before I get on

the plane.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: He did represent we were going

to be about 45 minutes yesterday, and we have now

gone an hour.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: How much longer do you

have, Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: I think 15 minutes, on the

outside.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's go off for a

second.

(Discussion off the record.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

710

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, I am

going to ask you to proceed, and I am going to let

you proceed; but you are going to have to proceed --

We have a time constraint with this witness, and I

am going to ask you to take that into consideration.

MR. TREPANIER: Thank you.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: We have another witness

waiting, too.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We do have another

witness waiting, and we don't have too much longer

for the day here.

In light of that, Mr. Trepanier, I would

expect you to ask some questions.

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Now.

MR. TREPANIER: Can you go ahead and run that

video to the spot that I asked for?

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Are you familiar with the use of chutes to

carry demolition debris to the ground?

Am I familiar with it? Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

711

Can a chute be installed on a four-story

building?

Yes.

Is there anything that prevented the

installation of a chute at 12- -- there is noth- --

Excuse me.

There was nothing that prevented the

installation of a chute at 1261 Halsted, was there?

Extreme cost.

What was that?

What you could put in the chute. You can't

put all the building material in a chute. There are

still beams -- there were still beams in that

building, there was concrete in that building, and

there were long wooden joists in that building.

They do not go into a chute.

All that material was handled on the

interior of the building, wasn't it?

What was that?

Those materials you talked about were

handled on the interior of the building, weren't

they?

I am not sure how they did it there.

You don't throw large beams off the side of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

712

a building, do you?

Yes.

When do you do that?

When it is safe.

Was it safe to throw large beams off on

1261 Halsted?

I believe so.

Do you know, were beams thrown off at

1261 Halsted?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, asked and answered.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Now, you referred to an extreme cost. What

was that cost?

I never figured it.

Why is that?

The building didn't require a chute.

Why did the building not require a chute?

Because the chute would only control the

debris to where you wanted it to go. We did not

need control of debris on that job site. We used

13th Street.

13th Street was used for what?

We blocked it off.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

713

How was --

At times.

For what --

For safety purposes.

What was occurring at the time that the

street was blocked off for safety purposes?

I wasn't there that often. I don't know --

How many times do I have to tell you this? I was

there a few times. You are asking me questions

about every single aspect of that job. I am not

familiar with it.

You did testify that the street was blocked

off for safety purposes?

Yes.

What was that? What activity was occurring

that required a safety precaution?

Demolition.

But the demolition proceeded for five

weeks, didn't it? Why was there only certain times

that a safety precaution was needed?

I am assuming it wasn't safe -- it wasn't

safe to drop things down, if that is what they were

doing, and leave the street open. I believe they

kept the street open only when it was safe for

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

714

people and cars to go by.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Again, I am going to object to

these questions about asking Mr. Kolko to speculate.

He was there a couple times. He has testified to

that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain the

objection.

Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: I am looking for a certain piece

on this video that would come up about 117. Have

you gotten to that spot?

MR. JOSEPH: Oh, 117? Okay.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Anything else aside

from that question, Mr. Trepanier?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you review the Speedway Wrecking

Company's answers to petitioners' interrogatories?

I might have. I don't remember.

But your name doesn't appear anywhere in

the interrogatories.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. He doesn't even

remember looking at the documents.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

715

BY MR. TREPANIER:

You did consult on the demolition plan for

the demolition of 1261 Halsted, didn't you?

Consult with whom?

With Speedway.

Consult with whom?

You didn't create that plan yourself, did

you?

Create what plan?

The demolition plan.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. There is no

testimony he created the plan.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you consult on the demolition plan bid

for health or safety concerns for the demolition of

1261 Halsted?

I believe my brother Larry had control of

that job.

Did you consult with him about that?

I might have. I don't remember.

MR. TREPANIER: I just have the one question

remaining when we get to that spot on the video.

Maybe I can put that there myself.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

716

MR. BLANKENSHIP: May I ask if any of the other

petitioners have questions that they be allowed to

ask them now to expedite things?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: On the video?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, on anything, while he is

searching for that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: He is at the video.

They are at 1- -- Well, they were at 117. Now they

are at --

Ms. Minnick -- I will allow that in light

of the time constraints -- do you have any questions

for Mr. Kolko?

MS. MINNICK: No. Actually, I don't.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you very much,

Ms. Minnick.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I think Mr. Joseph is

involved with the videotaping.

Mr. Joseph, do you have any questions --

MR. JOSEPH: Yes, I do.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: -- for Mr. Kolko?

Let's ask those now while Mr. Trepanier is

trying to find the right spot on the videotape.

MR. JOSEPH: All right. Okay.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

717

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Mr. Kolko, how are you today?

Fine.

Mr. Kolko, do you remember on a couple

occasions where I met you; in fact, on that very

same street, 13th Street?

No, I don't. I don't remember you.

Okay.

I believe you might have been somebody that

talked to me at the car. If that was you, I don't

remember.

That is me, right. My name is Lorenz.

Do you remember I mentioned my name?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, relevance. That is

a personal encounter.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain

because -- I will sustain that. I don't see how

that is relevant, Mr. Joseph.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you recall a discussion we had about

asbestos?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, relevance.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

718

Could you answer?

No, I do not.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

You mentioned earlier that -- something

about common dust earlier in your testimony today.

If that is what I said, yes.

Yes, you did. And I was wondering, what is

common dust?

What is common dust?

Right.

I guess common dust is anything that

will -- if the wind blows, will blow up from the

street, from a playground, what will be blown from a

building. I consider that common dust.

What you see blowing when the wheelbarrow

is dumping, do you consider that common dust?

Yes.

Why is that common dust?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, objection. He considers

it common dust. That is what he said.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled. If you can

answer, answer.

I just consider that common dust, no more

different than what you are going to get blowing up

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

719

from a ball field.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Could there be plaster?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, no foundation --

this gentleman -- for knowing what is in the dust.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

In common dust, could there be plaster in

common dust?

MR. JEDDELOH: I will object as to relevancy,

foundation, and what could be.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay. We are talking about the

dust that is leaving the building. He talked about

common dust and --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain the

objections.

Ask another question, Mr. Joseph.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Could there be lead paint in common dust?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection.

MR. JEDDELOH: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

Any further questions, Mr. Joseph?

MR. JOSEPH: Yes. I have just another one. I

am trying to figure out how to phrase it here.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

720

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you remember, were they using a hose the

day that I met you?

I don't remember. I am sure they were

because I am quite certain they had it on every day.

You are sure they were. Was 13th Street

blocked off?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. He doesn't recall

even meeting this man.

MR. JOSEPH: No, he did. He said he remembered

meeting me by the car.

THE WITNESS: I remember meeting somebody by the

car -- if that was you -- and I don't remember you.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled.

MR. JOSEPH: I don't mean remember my face. I

mean remember a discussion.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Hold on, hold on.

Overruled if you can answer that last question about

the street being blocked off on the day you met that

person.

I do not recall.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you remember the discussion about

asbestos?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

721

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, asked and answered.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q Do you remember that you said that the

University had taken care of that?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Joseph, he has

already stated that he doesn't remember that.

MR. JOSEPH: I am trying to remind him. Maybe

he can recollect.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I object to that. He says he

doesn't recall.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

MR. JOSEPH: You are not even letting me ask the

question.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q I am saying that I met you. You remember

that, correct?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Joseph, they have

objected to this question.

Is that an objection to this question?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. It is an objection to

this question.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: And I have sustained

that objection.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

722

MR. JOSEPH: Which question are you objecting

to?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: A series of questions

regarding the conversation with you that he doesn't

remember.

MR. JOSEPH: But he said he remembered having a

conversation with me.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: He remembered a conversation

with a man. And you said the man was you, but he

doesn't even remember you. So he can't remember a

conversation with you. That is my objection. You

asked him about a conversation. He says he doesn't

remember.

MR. JOSEPH: He just remembered having a

discussion with a man.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I don't think he said

he said that he --

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q Do you remember saying --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Hold on, Mr. Joseph.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I don't think he said

that he remembered the conversation.

Sir, did you remember the conversation?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

723

THE WITNESS: No.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I think you have

testified to that; and in light of that testimony, I

am sustaining the objections made by

Mr. Blankenship. I am asking you to move on to a

different question, please.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay. But my point is --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am not going to let

you ask that question, Mr. Joseph.

MR. JOSEPH: But I think that if you go into the

record, he says that he remembers having a

discussion with somebody.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right. But he has

stated that he does not remember the content of that

discussion, and you are asking questions about the

content of that discussion.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q Then let me refresh your memory --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am not going to

allow that line of questions. If you have anything

else, I would be happy to --

MR. JOSEPH: I can't refresh his memory about

what specifically was said?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

724

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: They have objected to

that.

MR. JOSEPH: I am trying to clarify that we had

a discussion pertaining to the specific demolition.

We were discussing -- in fact, we discussed the fact

that there was --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to him going on and

on.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Joseph, I am

sustaining this objection. Please do not continue

any further. If you have other questions, I will

allow them.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay. I am looking here, trying to

phrase the question. And I am frustrated because I

think that this is pertinent to --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I understand that you

are frustrated.

MR. JOSEPH: He has admitted that there was a

discussion, and I can recollect --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Joseph, we have

just gone over this. I don't want you to discuss

this any further.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay. Here is a question.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

725

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q How do you know if the asbestos has been

removed from a site?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection to foundation

again. If he wants to ask about 1261, he can ask

about it; but I think it is ridiculous to be asking

these vague general questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain that.

That is not relevant to this case, Mr. Joseph.

MR. JOSEPH: Well, it is relevant because if the

asbestos wasn't really removed and he relied on the

University just saying it was and they demolished a

building with asbestos in it, then asbestos could be

airborne into the Garden, into the little children

down the street.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: That wasn't his question to

this witness.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Q No. My question was how do you know if the

asbestos has been removed?

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object because it

is clear that this witness wouldn't have the

knowledge base necessary to answer that question

since he only visited the site on a couple of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

726

occasions. And the testimony is that his brother

was in charge of the demolition.

And I might add, with interest, that these

questions were not asked of the person with greatest

knowledge and information. Rather, the complainants

are selecting another witness who doesn't have this

knowledge. I don't know why. I think it is

harassment. And I think that it is time to --

MR. JOSEPH: Well, how about in general?

MR. JEDDELOH: I think it is time to move on.

The University is objecting to the continuance of

this proceeding on this basis. It is clearly

harassing, and that is the only purpose for which it

is being now offered.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to object.

I am going to sustain it -- I can't object. I am

going to sustain the objection.

Mr. Joseph, I do want you to move on from

this line of questioning, so if you have anything

else -- No?

MR. JOSEPH: No, I can't. I'm sorry.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Mr. Trepanier, you found the spot on the

videotape --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

727

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: -- you want to ask

your last question about?

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q I am going to show the video; and I am

going to direct your attention to these next two

minutes on the video to the activities of this

Speedway employee here (indicating); particularly,

the activities dealing with that wheelbarrow.

That dust is not wet, is it?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection. We have been through

this already, Mr. Knittle.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain that.

Mr. Trepanier, we have gone over this, and I am

going to sustain that objection for the reasons that

I have previously stated; mainly that the witness

has already testified he doesn't know whether the

dust was not wet or not. And I am not going to make

him testify to something that he has no knowledge

of.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

728

BY MR. TREPANIER:

The shot that we had just watched prior to

my turning that off, that material wasn't -- that

was moving sideways in the air, was it not?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. It speaks for

itself.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We have gone over this

line of questions before. I will sustain that

objection.

MR. TREPANIER: Could I try once again?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will allow you one

question, but bear in mind we have gone over this

more than once.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Was that material coming out of the

wheelbarrow falling as you would expect wet debris

do fall?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will overrule that.

If you can answer that, go ahead.

Yes.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

So it is your testimony that that looked

like wet debris?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

729

MR. JEDDELOH: No, that is not his testimony. I

am going to object to that.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Q The material dumped out of that

wheelbarrow, it didn't look wet, did it?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

He has already answered that,

Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: I have no further questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you very much.

Do we have any clarification?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: No.

MR. JEDDELOH: None on the University's part.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you for your

time, Mr. Kolko.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Who is the next

witness, Mr. Trepanier?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Mr. Hernandez is here, I

believe.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Is he capable of

testifying? Did we decide that?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

730

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. We have determined that

he was.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's call

Mr. Hernandez, then.

This is the last witness I think we have

today.

MR. JEDDELOH: I would presume.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Will you swear this

witness in, please?

(Witness sworn.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier?

GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ

having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Hello.

Hi.

My name is Lionel Trepanier. I am going to

just ask you some questions about a demolition over

at Halsted Street.

Okay.

Could you say your name for the record?

My name is Guillermo Hernandez, and I was

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

731

working on that building.

Did you -- What did you -- what was your

part in that demolition --

Running the bobcat.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: You have to let him finish the

question before you answer.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. TREPANIER: Thanks.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Who else operated the Bobcat?

Artemio.

What was that?

Artemio, the other guy. You know,

sometimes when I go down and do something and we

have to do -- you know, wrecking team. And then he

can jump up on the bobcat and do it.

Were you there on every day of this

demolition?

Yes.

What floor did you start on with the

bobcat?

On the floor of the third floor.

On the third floor?

Yes. We had to take the roof out before we

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

732

put the bobcat in. We took all the roof, and then

we put the bobcat.

Was the bobcat -- Now, on the first day you

operated the bobcat, did you see the bobcat placed

up on the roof?

No, no.

So then the first time you saw the bobcat

was in the morning when you arrived at work?

No. We put the bobcat, me and my

brother -- he is the foreman, you know. We put the

bobcat.

How did you get the bobcat up there?

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object to this,

Mr. Knittle, at this point. What possible relevance

does all this have? Again, except to kill trees

through creating long transcripts, I don't think we

are accomplishing anything.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I will join in the objection.

Bobcat or sledge hammer, the issue here is whether

there was dust and the effect the dust had.

MR. TREPANIER: You know, we are talking about

the methods. I think that the objections aren't

well placed, being that I have just started to

talk -- just started to ask questions of the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

733

witness. I think they are just trying to put the

witness on edge here.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to sustain

the objections and ask you, Mr. Trepanier, to move

on to some relevant questions.

MR. TREPANIER: All right. I will ask a

different question now.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

How was the bobcat used?

Just push the brick.

Was the bobcat used for any other ways?

No, not much; just to move heavy stuff like

the big pieces of concrete out of the way.

You used the bobcat to break walls, didn't

you?

No, not much. No, not much. I don't

remember, you know, to break the walls. Most of the

building we do by hand.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Same relevance objection. I

think we are still on this same topic.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Yes. I thought I had

told you to move on to a different subject,

Mr. Trepanier, at least something that was relevant.

And if this is relevant, I don't know how it is.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

734

You could explain it to me.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, just looking into the

different methods of demolition, which were used at

which times.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I don't see how that

is relevant.

MR. TREPANIER: I understand they have different

control needs. There are different control needs,

depending on --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I don't see how these

questions that you are asking about the bobcat are

relevant, so I am going to ask you to move on.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

When you operated the bobcat on the third

floor, was there anybody else on the third floor?

What do you mean? Yes. More guys are

breaking the front walls by hand, you know, with

sledge hammer.

How many guys were breaking the front

walls?

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object again,

Mr. --

I don't remember; two, three. I don't

remember.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

735

MR. JEDDELOH: I am going to object again. We

are all in this technique thing, and I just don't

see how this is relevant.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to overrule

that and let him ask who was present when he was

working on that day.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

So other than the couple of guys that were

up in front breaking a wall, was there anybody else

on the third floor?

I only remember my brother, the foreman;

and Artemio, and another two guys. But I don't

remember. Most of the time, you know, I pushing the

bricks in. I don't pay much attention.

You pushed the bricks where?

To the truck.

To the truck?

Yes.

How did the bricks get from the third floor

to the truck?

We pushed it with the bobcat.

You pushed it out a window, didn't you?

Windows?

Windows.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

736

No.

How did the bricks get out of the building?

We knocked down the walls; and then, you

know, everything is free, just the floor. And then

we loaded like that.

You pushed them out the back of the

building?

No, on one side.

On one side?

Yes, because no room on the other. Not

much room.

So you were pushing -- you say you were

pushing things out the side of the building, not in

the alley?

No, not in the alley.

Was there anybody -- Are you aware of who

was down below when you were pushing stuff out?

Yes. There was somebody with a water hose.

With a hose?

Yes.

That hose had been upstairs earlier, hadn't

it?

No. When we loading the trucks, we use the

water downstairs, you know. And sometimes when we

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

737

make piles, we put the water hose upstairs and we

put some water on it; and then we start loading the

truck. But when we started loading the truck, there

was somebody downstairs with water.

Now, that was -- that is the same hose,

isn't it? You brought it from upstairs, and then it

is taken downstairs?

Yes, because when we make the piles, we put

the water upstairs and -- the water hose, and we

started to put some water on the bricks and the

piles. And then we bring the water hose down and --

like, I have to be downstairs and watch the people

who are walking on the street; and I also put water

on the truck.

Were you involved in the hand wrecking of

this property?

Not much. When we are finished with the

bobcat, then I started working with the other guys.

How soon into the job did you start with

the bobcat?

I don't remember. There was two floors

with brick floors, and then the first floor was a

wood floor, so there is no way to put the bobcat

there. There is too much weight.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

738

So how was that handled, then?

By hand.

There wasn't a hose on the roof at that

time, was there?

No. We put it from the ground. There is

no way to be upstairs, then. You know, there is too

much water upstairs. Sometimes when you push too

much water, you know, all the floors -- there is a

lot of water in there. You cannot do nothing like

that. So when we are making the dust, then we put

water.

So the water was sprayed from down below

because up on top, spraying water created --

On the first floor.

On the first floor?

Yes. When we almost finished, then we have

to lift the water from the ground; you know, push

it.

During the hand wrecking, right at the

beginning of the job, water up on the roof created a

problem, didn't it?

MR. JEDDELOH: Object as to the form of the

vagueness of the question.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I will object to the leading

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

739

question. This is his witness.

MR. TREPANIER: It is an agent from the other

side. I saw -- The rule provides that I can elicit

testimony as if on cross-examination.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: If you qualify him as

an adverse witness, you can.

MR. TREPANIER: No. I think any witness --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I don't think a laborer --

MR. TREPANIER: Any agent.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: -- on the job qualifies as an

adverse witness.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Show me your

regulation, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: I am looking into the provisions

right now.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I would add that it is

particularly objectionable when we have the slight

language issues here, for leading questions to be

allowed of their own witness.

MR. TREPANIER: I think that what I am looking

at is 103.29.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: 209?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes, sub A.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I believe he is not an

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

740

officer, director, managing agent, or foreman of the

party.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I agree.

Mr. Trepanier, unless I determine that this

witness is hostile or unwilling, you can't examine

him as an adverse witness with leading questions.

And I do not think that this witness has been

hostile or unwilling to this point, so I would ask

you to ask nonleading questions, please.

MR. TREPANIER: Thank you.

I would like to show the witness a couple

of moments -- in fact, that same piece that we just

looked at on the video, so it should be cued up.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

I am going to turn the video on here of

the -- a videotape that we have of the demolition

hand wrecking. And then after you look at it, I am

going to ask you a couple of questions about it.

MR. TREPANIER: You might have to hit that video

monitor switch.

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented to

the attendees of the hearing, and no

proceedings we had during presentation.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Just note for the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

741

record, the tape is playing now.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

This is September 9, '96. This would be

the fourth day of the demolition activity.

I appreciate your patience. It looks like

I cued it up a little bit early. It should be

coming up here momentarily.

That is particularly the segment that I

wanted you to be able to see. That is at 11:49.

You were on the demolition site on that day

of September 9, '96, weren't you?

Yes.

Were you on the roof at that time?

Yes.

Did you operate that wheelbarrow?

No. Sometimes, you know, we turn -- we do

a little bit of anything. Whatever the boss says,

we have to do it.

That would be your brother?

Yes. He is the foreman, yes.

Did you operate the wheelbarrow at all that

day?

I don't remember.

Who else was up there on the roof with you?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

742

When we first started working on it, we

had, like, three or four people -- I don't

remember -- because we can do nothing like this.

After we do something and then we start hiring

people.

Was the water creating a problem on the

roof at that time?

No.

Why is that?

Because we make a pile on the roof and then

we put the water all the way upstairs and then we

spray some water on the pile and then we start

carrying it with wheelbarrows to the truck.

Did you bring that hose upstairs?

Sometimes.

What about on the 9th, on that day that we

were reviewing?

I don't remember.

Would the hose -- would you keep the hose

up on the roof there with you all day?

Yes. We kept it running all day.

Was the hose on the roof all day?

I think so, yes, because we leave the water

upstairs. We just take the hose coming from the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

743

pump on the street and then leave the rest hanging

down from the third floor.

Didn't you put the hose down into the alley

sometimes during that day?

MR. JEDDELOH: Objection, leading.

I don't know.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Was the hose brought to the alley on --

That day?

Yes.

I don't remember. I do not remember that.

Would there be any reason to bring the hose

down to the alley?

The truck was parking on the side, so there

is no way to put -- we have to put the water hose on

the street, and the cars passing by. So we put our

heavy-duty hose just across the street. We cannot

put it, you know, by the street, on the street. We

have to put it across the street.

While the activity was going on when you

guys were using those wheelbarrows, was there

anybody down below?

Yes. We have to put a guy downstairs to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

744

watch the people, you know, walking by so they

doesn't get too close from the truck.

Was that person doing anything else other

than watching for people?

Like after we put the bobcat there, you

know, also put water on the truck.

So you had the -- the water was in the

alley when the bobcat was there?

Yes.

How about when the --

Not in the alley; on the street.

On the street?

Yes, by the truck.

How about during that time when you were

using the wheelbarrow up on the roof, was there a

hose in the alley at that time?

No. We put the hose on the roof. We kept

it on the roof to spray the piles.

How come when the wheelbarrows are dumped,

the material didn't fall directly to the ground?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. He is not an

expert on physics here.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain the --

Could you rephrase that, Mr. Trepanier?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

745

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Did you see on the video when the

wheelbarrows were dumping over?

Yes, I saw.

Did you see that dust was going off into

the air?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection as to the

characterization of what the videos shows. The

video speaks for itself.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Why would that dust have been going into

the air when the wheelbarrows were dumping --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Same objection. The video

speaks for itself, and he is just characterizing it

in a different form.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will overrule.

If you can answer that.

It happens all the time. You put water;

and always on the ground, on the bottom there is --

you know, it makes some dust. You cannot put -- you

have to put a lot of water in it. Then we put

water -- you know, there is a little bit of dust on

the ground, sitting on the ground. I think the last

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

746

wheelbarrows we put on the trailer. We put water --

we keep the water upstairs. That is for sure.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

So you think maybe those were the last

wheelbarrow loads off the pile?

Like I say, there is always something on

the ground; and the last one, you know, there is

some dust.

The hose wasn't on at that time, was it?

Yes. We have to put the water hose -- the

first thing in the morning is to put the water

hose -- you know, connect everything. We have to

put the water first thing in the morning.

There is a shutoff valve on the nozzle,

isn't there?

The nozzle? We had a wrench to close the

pump.

Then on the end of the hose, on the spring

end of the hose, was there a shutoff?

We use a nozzle. You can shut it off and

turn it on.

Would you turn it off?

We would spray the water; and then if there

is a lot of water, we turn it off.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

747

Would it create a problem if you didn't

turn it off?

MR. JEDDELOH: Object as to the form of the

vagueness of the question and use of the word

problem.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Overruled. But I

don't know that --

Answer the question, sir, if you can.

If we leave the water on, we got a mess up

on the roof, you know. All the water -- you get

your feet wet up, and it makes a lot of problems if

we leave it all day.

BY MR. TREPANIER:

Who would decide when to turn on the hose?

Any guy can do it. The foreman say turn

off the water or turn it on. He is the foreman. He

put anybody.

Did you see the foreman ask anyone to turn

on the water that day?

No. I don't put too much attention. I

just keep working.

MR. TREPANIER: No further questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Joseph, do you

have any questions for this witness?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

748

MR. JOSEPH: Yes, I do.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Sir, did you see any asbestos on this job?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, lack of foundation.

MR. JEDDELOH: Join.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will sustain, but

you can ask some foundation questions.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you know what asbestos is?

Yes, I do.

Did you see any on this job?

No, I don't see no asbestos.

How would you be assured that there wasn't

any?

I believe on the -- the building was burned

up, I think, on the second floor. And the rest

there was no more pipes left. We don't take too

much iron pipes.

Excuse me. What did you say about the

second floor?

I think it was burned up.

Burned?

Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

749

Which part was burned on the building?

On the front, the second floor.

The second floor front?

Yes.

I don't recall that. I wonder if you could

be confusing that with a different building

because --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. He gave his

testimony.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained. He has

testified to the condition of the building as he

remembers it, Mr. Joseph.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

So did you use the -- which days did you

use the hose?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection. We have gone

through this in incredible detail now.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

I mean, every day?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sustained.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you think if you used more water it

would have been less dust?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Objection, speculation and no

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

750

foundation that he is an expert on dust.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will overrule. You

can answer if you can.

I am not sure. You know, the foreman -- I

have to keep working on the bobcat sometimes. When

there is nothing left for the bobcat, then I jump

out. I never put too much attention. I focus on

the things I do.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

Do you remember where the fire hydrant was?

The hydrant?

Right.

On the south side of Halsted.

Okay, south side. Do you mean 13th Street?

Halsted runs north and south.

I think it was on the corner of 13th and

Halsted; like 4 feet, 2 feet south.

So how would you have routed the hose?

What do you mean?

I mean, how did you -- where did the hose

go, then, just across the -- that would have been

across the street, then?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Asked and answered. He went

into great detail about the hose and the road, the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

751

heavy-duty hose.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Do you have any

specific --

BY MR. JOSEPH:

So was the hose going across the road?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to let him

answer that.

Yes. We put the heavy-duty hose across the

street.

BY MR. JOSEPH:

So was the street blocked off?

No. We left the hose like that. Nothing

happened with the hose when the cars passed by.

MR. JOSEPH: Okay. I have no further questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Ms. Minnick, do you

have any questions of this witness?

MS. MINNICK: Actually, no; but may I interject

something here?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's get rid of the

witness first, and then I will let you speak when we

let him step down.

MS. MINNICK: Sure.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Are there any

questions on this side?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

752

MR. JEDDELOH: None from the University.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: None from Speedway?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: No.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you, sir. You

are excused.

Ms. Minnick, you wanted to interject

something?

MS. MINNICK: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: What would that be?

MS. MINNICK: Based on the objections that the

witness is not an expert on physics, William James

Brighting, 1875 to 1899:

"The conversational style of these essays

reflect their origin in public lectures, as well as

James' conviction that truth can be discovered as

much in the course of everyday life as the

activities of science or the philosophical

speculation" --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I am going to object to the

whole speech here.

MS. MINNICK: Oh, I'm sorry. No, it is not a

speech. It is not my speech.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Well, I understand

what you are trying to say.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

753

MS. MINNICK: I am just saying that, you know --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: A person can --

MS. MINNICK: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I think I overruled

that objection, actually, and let him answer to the

best of his abilities, as I recall.

MR. JOSEPH: Can she finish that?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: No. I don't think

that is relevant to the case.

MS. MINNICK: I think that you let me get to the

crux of what my point was.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I was trying to let

you read that.

MS. MINNICK: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We have no more

witnesses scheduled for today.

Mr. Trepanier, are you done with your case?

MR. TREPANIER: No, I am not. I anticipate to

call --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I want to know who it

is you want to call.

MR. TREPANIER: I want to call Mr. Ortiz, who is

an employee of Speedway.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: What is Mr. Ortiz's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

754

first name?

MR. TREPANIER: I think that is Artemio.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Artemio Ortiz?

MR. TREPANIER: Right.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: They need to get a translator.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: He is the witness --

just for the record -- that was here this morning

but does not speak English well enough to testify.

We need a translator for him. So, Mr. Trepanier,

you would have to find a translator for him.

Who else do you plan on calling?

MR. TREPANIER: And I am going to -- I haven't

made a contact, but I am intending to contact two

former employees of Speedway and bring those two

people in.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: And who might they be?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I thought he said yesterday he

was done with the two witnesses we heard today.

This is, again, the concern we raised with our

motion. We have now had six adverse witnesses

called, all of whom testified there was water going

on, none of whom have advanced their case. If we

are going to go through all 15 employees one at a

time and have them come in here, I think at this

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

755

point the burden is on Mr. Trepanier to show that

these adverse witnesses or these Speedway witnesses

have some relevant knowledge of probative value

here.

This is becoming extremely cumulative at

this point. We had six people testify as to the

watering practices at this site: the foreman and a

laborer specifically right on the job. How many

more do we have to hear to prove our case? You

know, we are not even talking about proving the

claimants' case at this point. They are proving our

case for us. This is an incredible waste of time at

this point.

MR. JEDDELOH: And I might add that it is even

more incredible considering the fact that the

testimony has been remarkably consistent and leaves

us with virtually no question nor no lack of

knowledge on the issue of what happened at 1261.

MR. TREPANIER: I think that the attorneys may

not have realized, as I was listening to the

testimony, that yesterday's testimony was that

the -- while that dumping of the wheelbarrows was

going on, the hose nearly always was in the alley

and downstairs, that somebody was holding that hose

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

756

and spraying it up at the falling debris.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am going to stop

this now. I understand your objections, and I

understand you have differing views of what the

testimony is showing. I don't want to get into that

right now.

First I want to hear who you are planning

on calling for the rest of your case in chief.

I will note any objections you have to any

further witnesses and may actually make a decision

on that, but I do want to hear who he is going to

call and who he wants to call. We are obviously not

going to get this hearing done; but I do want to

limit it, if I can, in the future. I don't want it

to be cumulative, and I don't want it to be --

I don't want to be calling witnesses that

have nothing further to offer, Mr. Trepanier.

MR. TREPANIER: Mr. Sandoval, Enrique --

MR. JEDDELOH: The University would request,

therefore, that at least Mr. Trepanier be asked to

give two or three sentences about what these people

expect -- he expects these people to say.

MR. TREPANIER: -- and Mr. Guzman, Manuel

Guzman. These are former employees, people I intend

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

757

to interview before calling them as witnesses. If

they have nothing to contribute, I can determine

that before --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: These are Mr. Sandoval

and Mr. Guzman?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Are these people who

are on the list provided yesterday, or --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, they were on the list --

they have always been identified as Speedway

employees. They have been on all the lists.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: These were on the --

were these people on the job site of September 9th,

I guess, the job records that were provided

yesterday?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Is that right, Lionel? I

don't have that in front of me.

MR. TREPANIER: Yes, that's correct.

Also I am going to talk with Mr. Ortiz's

brother, who is not an employee, Gustano Ortiz; and

he is on here also. And it may be that, you know,

in talking with Gustano Ortiz, I may see that

talking to his brother won't be necessary or

possible.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

758

MR. LARRY KOLKO: What is the initial name on

Sandoval and Guzman?

MR. TREPANIER: Sandoval is Enrique, and the

other is J. Manuel Guzman.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Who else,

Mr. Trepanier, do you think is necessary for you to

make your case?

MR. TREPANIER: That will be all from Speedway,

and then from the University I have just one.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Is that Mr. Gimpel?

MR. TREPANIER: Mr. Gimpel. And then from the

complainants: myself, who has yet to testify;

Mr. Wager, Mr. Pandya; and anticipating testimony

from Mr. McFarland.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Is that it?

MR. TREPANIER: That is all the witnesses.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: From the respondents,

do you still anticipate a half day for your response

here for your case in chief?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I think at the most.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: For both? This is not

just a half day for Speedway and a half day for the

University?

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right. I think Speedway will

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

759

have one witness that should be -- possibly. We may

not even call another witness -- half an hour to an

hour. And then the University will have -- one or

two witnesses?

MR. JEDDELOH: We would have two witnesses. We

wouldn't expect that direct examination would take

more than an hour and a half, and I am trying to be

liberal in saying that would be on the outside. Of

course, we can't assure what kind of

cross-examination we might have, which would extend

the time that would be necessary.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: It is not our intent to

duplicate any of the testimony, so we are truncating

what we were otherwise going to present because the

evidence is already in the record.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Okay. Well, I have

got two outstanding motions to continue; one by the

University and one by Mr. Trepanier, which I had

denied, granting him leave to reinstate that if, in

fact, it came to it. It looks like we didn't get as

far as we thought we would. So I am going to

revisit that motion to continue.

I will note, Mr. Trepanier, that you have

to serve these things on the respondents and the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

760

remainder of the complainants; and you have to let

the Pollution Control Board -- especially the

Clerk's Office -- know that you are doing that. We

don't have certificate of service for that or a

notice of filing. So unless that comes into the

office today or tomorrow, we are not -- I am going

to have to ask you to refile it and serve it on

everybody.

MR. TREPANIER: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I am not going to rule

on the motions to continue now. We are going to

continue. I want to go off the record. The reason

I am not going to rule on it, I want to look at

these witnesses that Mr. Trepanier wants to call;

and I may limit the number of witness that I allow

him to call and any continuance. I don't want to do

that now. I want to think about it a little bit.

You have a half day you need. I would like

to get it done in a day and just continue it for one

more day; and if that is possible, I am going to try

to do that.

MR. JEDDELOH: I would suggest, considering the

laborious process we have gone through, that unless

you severely limit the number of witnesses that we

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

761

are going to need to schedule two days. And I am

just saying that --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I understand; and I

agree with you, Mr. Jeddeloh. And that is why I am

not making the decision now. If we have to do it

for two days, we will. We will talk about dates off

the record. We are going to notice it up again.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: I will just renew what I

stated a few minutes ago. Now it looks like he

wants five more or four more former Speedway

employees, and he hasn't given us any reason why he

wants those four. I cannot imagine how that would

not be cumulative to the six witnesses that have

already gone by. So I think he should be required

to, as Mr. Jeddeloh said, give us in a couple

sentences why he thinks he needs each of these

people because we are going to spend a day on five

more Speedway witnesses, all who are going to say

there was watering. That is ridiculous.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I understand that. If

Mr. Trepanier is willing, I would be happy to have

him give some idea on the record as to why he thinks

he needs each one of those witnesses. I will state

that as to Mr. Gimpel, who was not available, and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

762

the three Speedway employees who were contained on

the records that were provided yesterday, those

records should have been provided during discovery.

I am not suggesting that it was anything

but inadvertent; but in light of the fact that it

wasn't provided during discovery, I have some

sympathy for Mr. Trepanier interviewing -- excuse

me -- getting testimony from those three witnesses,

whether it is cumulative or not.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Just to make a record on that

point, he did have all of those names a year ago

and --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: No. I understand, and

I am not suggesting that he didn't have the names.

I am suggesting he didn't have the documents, and we

have talked about that already.

Mr. Trepanier, why don't you go down each

one of these witnesses and tell us what you expect

to get from them in terms of testimony?

MR. TREPANIER: Well, I anticipate that these --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let's start with

Ortiz, A. Ortiz.

MR. TREPANIER: A. Ortiz. I expect to learn

from Mr. Ortiz what was occurring on the third

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

763

floor. When our witness today, who really just

concentrated on his work and wasn't able to observe

what was going on -- Mr. Ortiz was in a position to

be observing what is going on because, as the

witness said today, Mr. Ortiz would get up onto the

bobcat when today's witness would get off.

So unlike Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Ortiz was very

aware of what is going on on the third floor. So

that is going to be an important place because

apparently the -- although there has been

conflicting testimony, some testimony is that

pollution controls were being conducted on the

interior of the building.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: What about

Mr. Sandoval?

MR. TREPANIER: Mr. Sandoval, I just learned

yesterday that he was on the job site on that date,

being September 9th. Now, Mr. Sandoval is not

currently an employee of Speedway, and I intend to

interview Mr. Sandoval to learn what information

that he does have. I do see from the record that I

received yesterday that Mr. Sandoval was present on

the 9th of September at the demolition, and I

believe that he is going to be able to give us some

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

764

information as to what if any pollution controls

were being used on that date.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Guzman?

MR. TREPANIER: A similar response -- well,

Mr. Guzman -- maybe I can just skip down and say it

is a similar response to Mr. Ortiz. As for Mr. --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Trepanier, let me

stop you. It is true, though, you had the names of

Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Ortiz, G. Ortiz since discovery

began, right? You just did not have the document

that put them on September 9th at the job site?

MR. TREPANIER: Right. What I had was --

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Did you have their

names?

MR. TREPANIER: I had a list of 15 names.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: The names were --

MR. TREPANIER: And their names were on the

list, and I was specifically instructed not to

contact them by Mr. Blankenship.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I just wanted to make

sure you had those names in discovery.

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

MR. BLANKENSHIP: And he also knew they were not

employees back in February or January, I think,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

765

whenever I told him -- whenever I sent him the

letter.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right. Whatever --

the week before that last --

MR. BLANKENSHIP: It was right after he

submitted the notice requiring us to produce, I sent

him a letter the next day saying we didn't have them

as employees anymore.

MR. TREPANIER: Now, Mr. Guzman had a different

responsibility on the job. I want to -- The

responsibility that he has is not one that has been

inquired into. And I am just looking right now for

my document that disclosed what his task was. No.

I see that Mr. Guzman, similar to Mr. Sandoval and

Mr. Ortiz, is listed as a laborer, although I have

got some concerns that in fact Mr. Guzman had tasks

other than the laborer, as his home location is not

in Chicago. It is in Romeoville, Illinois. So

unlike all the other persons reported as laborers

who lived in and around the downtown area,

Mr. Guzman was coming in from a long ways away.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Nonetheless, he is

listed as a laborer?

MR. TREPANIER: Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

766

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: The same, pretty much,

as Mr. Sandoval and Mr. G. Ortiz?

MR. TREPANIER: As was the foreman of the job --

was listed as a laborer.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Well, hold on. I

don't want to get into any of that right now.

From Mr. Gimpel, what do you expect to

learn?

MR. TREPANIER: From Mr. Gimpel, we expect to

learn if the University has any plan for

1261 Halsted.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: And the complainants?

MR. TREPANIER: The complainants, they will

testify variously to their observations of the

demolition at the times that they saw it and

injuries that they may have suffered. That is what

I would call the complainants for.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you,

Mr. Trepanier, for going through that.

MR. JEDDELOH: If it would be useful, if

Mr. Gimpel is only going to be called for the

purpose of testifying as to a plan for 1261 Halsted,

the University would be happy, if it would be

needed, to file a motion to quash the notice to the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

767

University for his attendance because any plans the

University has for that property are simply not

relevant to whether or not there was a 9A or 21B

violation.

If that is what we are going to have him be

hauled in here for, then I think that it is

inappropriate. If a motion is necessary, we will be

glad to file one.

MR. TREPANIER: Well, I have a different opinion

than the attorney because I believe that the Board

must consider the purpose of the demolition when

they are to make the determination under the

criteria, talking about the highest use of the

property. If a demolition happens for no cause and

causes some pollution, that would be deemed

unreasonable, even where another demolition was --

caused some pollution for a purpose.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Right. I understand

your argument. If he makes his motion to quash, you

know, you can make your arguments at that point in

time; although, once again, this was a properly

noticed witness who wasn't available for this

hearing. So I would not be entirely sympathetic to

his not being present at the next hearing.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

768

1 MR. JEDDELOH: It is not a question of his

2 availability. It would be a question --

3 HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: It would be a question

4 of relevance. I understand that. But there are

5 various issues in there, Mr. Jeddeloh.

6 All right. Let's go off the record.

(Hearing concluded sine die.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

769

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

) SS.

COUNTY OF C O O K

)

GABRIELLE PUDLO, being first duly sworn,

on oath says that she is a Certified Shorthand

Reporter doing business in the City of Chicago,

County of Cook and the State of Illinois; that she

reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the

foregoing hearing; and that the foregoing is a true

and correct transcript of her shorthand notes so

taken as aforesaid and contains all the proceedings

had at the said hearing.

________________________________ 16

GABRIELLE PUDLO, CSR, RPR17

C.S.R. No. 084-004173

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to

before me this ______ day

of ______________, 1999.

___________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC22

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292