January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 53 to 56 of 143 14 of 57 sheets 53 THE WITNESS: That is and also didn't1 represent the majority of the slope.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay.3 My question for you, do you have any4 experience having sort of done a postmortem, when5 there's been a collapse, like is that part of your6 expertise?7 THE WITNESS: Yes.8 THE PUBLIC: Okay.9 And is it usually the main part of the slope10 that is the thing that causes the precipitating of the11 collapse or is it the aberration points, as they break12 off they then fall down and then the whole thing gathers13 steam and causes, you know, an avalanche?14 THE WITNESS: Well, triggering events vary15 by their nature, often caused by water as the main16 triggering of most slides.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 So what are causes of most rock slides and19 avalanches, those kinds of things?20 THE WITNESS: That's a major precipitation21 event, yes.22 THE PUBLIC: Okay.23 And you said you found a water table on one24 of your test points. Can you tell us which one and25 54 point at with a laser where you found the water?1 THE WITNESS: Could you scroll to the test2 pit logs. I believe it was TP-1 or TP-8.3 THE PUBLIC: Could you just show us TP-1 and4 TP-8 and then we can come back.5 THE WITNESS: TP --6 THE PUBLIC: They're both right there at the7 absolute top of the slope.8 THE WITNESS: Right.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 So the one place that you found the water11 table is at the absolute top of the slope, is that12 correct?13 THE WITNESS: Well, we're going to -- I14 wouldn't say it was a water table. Might have been a15 wet sample.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. A possible water table?17 THE WITNESS: I would say localized water.18 THE PUBLIC: Maybe a water table?19 THE WITNESS: If there was a water table it20 would be continuous throughout the borings and test pits21 and we did not see that.22 THE PUBLIC: Okay.23 Unless it, you know, flows somewhere into24 that unexplored 375 foot by 700 foot area that you did25 55 not do any testing, is that correct? Couldn't that be1 possible, that there was water in that area that you2 don't know about?3 THE WITNESS: If there's water there it4 could be water pockets of water.5 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry, could you say that6 again, I can't hear you.7 THE WITNESS: If there's pockets of water,8 purged condition, they could be. So test pit 1 had9 water, that had water.10 THE PUBLIC: Test pit 1. Okay.11 And can we

u say that6 again, I can't hear you.7 THE WITNESS: If there's pockets of water,8 purged condition, they could be. So test pit 1 had9 water, that had water.10 THE PUBLIC: Test pit 1. Okay.11 And can we zoom in a little bit to test pit12 1. No, you got to go to the left. Okay.13 So test pit 1, which is right smack in the14 middle of Building D or top third really where line A15 is, correct?16 THE WITNESS: Test pit 1 shows some seeping17 water, decomposed rock, so it could be a part of a,18 could be part of water, it could be water got into the19 rock and it's seeping, it was trapped in the rock and it20 just seeped in.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay.22 What date was that sample taken?23 THE WITNESS: This was dated November 15.24 THE PUBLIC: November 15, is that correct?25 56 THE WITNESS: Correct.1 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware that it had2 rained, less rain in the history of New Jersey for two3 months almost immediately prior to that date?4 THE WITNESS: I'm aware of that.5 THE PUBLIC: Could that have any impact on6 where you found water or not?7 THE WITNESS: That is possible, yes.8 THE PUBLIC: So it could be possible given9 that you tested these things after we have had the10 largest, longest drought that this entire area has ever11 seen in -- are you confident that if we had a normal12 amount of rain you would have gotten exactly the same13 results?14 THE WITNESS: No, which is exactly why our15 analysis we did sensitivity on different water levels16 within the entire slope. We treated the entire slope as17 it was saturated.18 THE PUBLIC: You stated earlier that your19 analysis is not necessarily an algorithm, it is based on20 opinions, right?21 THE WITNESS: A stability analysis. A22 stability analysis is done using a computer program.23 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry.24 THE WITNESS: Using a computer program.25

15 of 57 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 57 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Using a computer1 program. So what computer program does it use?2 THE WITNESS: Called SLOPE/W is what we used3 to analyze this.4 THE PUBLIC: Has SLOPE/W every been wrong5 about something like this in your experience, just6 curious?7 THE WITNESS: I don't know how to answer8 that.9 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking narrow to your10 experience, has it been incorrect? SLOPE/W ever been11 used as a tool to make these kinds of predictions and12 it's failed, that's what I'm curious of, in your13 knowledge?14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know.15 THE PUBLIC: So not to your knowledge?16 THE WITNESS: No.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 Perhaps you'd like to look into that.19 I guess the last thing is, again, you're not20 able to quantify what the steepest slope is, right?21 THE WITNESS: I don't know as I sit here22 what the steepest slope is. I can figure it out23 quickly. I can take some measurements.24 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. You're25 58 clearly a brilliant engineer, so I'm sure you could1 figure that out. But, again, with the dryness2 conditions we're not really sure of anything that's3 going on in this absolutely gigantic area dead center of4 the map, but we do have, and this one is to your5 statement, the opinion part of it, is that you're sure6 because of your teams opinion and long experience you7 feel confident that what's going on between A and B8 appears utterly predictable to you, is that right?9 THE WITNESS: It's -- we feel that, we are10 confident that the data that we have is representative11 of the rest of that slope and that what we did is we12 analyzed these two slope sections, different geometries13 of those sections by varying, lowering the strength of14 materials and increasing the water table to analyze,15 assess different conditions that could play into whether16 it has long-term stability issues.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 To be clear, if you had found water, let's19 say at every one of these, wouldn't it have changed your20 analysis at all?21 THE WITNESS: Not in the way we did the22 analysis. We analyzed a continuous water table, I think23 it was three different levels.24 THE PUBLIC: Okay. All right. Great. But25 59 -- and the last thing was just that, again, where the1 steepest slopes are you can't get equipment in to even2 test that because it would be to dangerous for

E PUBLIC: Okay. All right. Great. But25 59 -- and the last thing was just that, again, where the1 steepest slopes are you can't get equipment in to even2 test that because it would be to dangerous for equipment3 to get into there, correct?4 THE WITNESS: I don't know that's the case,5 it would be to dangerous. We did what we did for6 practical reasons.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay. It just wasn't practical8 to do more testing in that area?9 THE WITNESS: We just couldn't get to it10 perhaps.11 THE PUBLIC: Is there a way that testing12 could be done if there was a will to do it, because13 we're concerned that, that really steep area that's14 center, that has not a single test done on it, that15 overlooks houses, is there a way to do it in your16 experience?17 THE WITNESS: Potentially there's a way,18 depends on-site conditions, if we're looking at a blank19 map here, but in reality it's covered with trees.20 MR. PLOCKER: We can cut a bunch of trees21 down to do it.22 THE WITNESS: Cut down a lot of trees and23 gain access?24 THE PUBLIC: I think we'd all rather not cut25 60 down a bunch of trees, which you were planning to any1 way. But nice joke. But, okay, so there's not a2 practical way to actually make sure that our concerns,3 our collective concerns, I speak for other people here4 regarding safety and well-being, everybody who sleeps at5 night with their children under that, there is not a6 practical way to get in there, except maybe cutting down7 all the trees and making jokes about it. Okay. Thank8 you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.10 I think that ladies first, sir.11 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein again.12 Sorry about if this is testifying. My13 question is, when did you do this site testing? Like14 did you do all site testing or is there any reason that15 you looked to the site as possibly being more16 susceptible to an issue rather than like normally?17 THE WITNESS: In terms of slope stability I18 -- look, I did take all the sites serious.19 THE PUBLIC: No, not seriously.20 THE WITNESS: This site itself is a21 relatively shallower slope than many others that I deal22 with and so I still look at this as a slope of, that23 would give you concern and consideration and we, we get24 the data, we need to perform the relevant analysis to25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 61 to 64 of 143 16 of 57 sheets 61 give us a good understanding of the ground conditions as1 properly characterized and then develop our findings and2 recommendations from that.3 THE PUBLIC: So the USGS geological society,4 they have a map of areas that are susceptible or likely5 landslide sites, I can pull the exact name of the map.6 It's the US Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility Map.7 This site is in the red, designated red on that map,8 which they indicate as the highest level of9 susceptibility to landslides. So I'm asking if you10 treat it differently if it's on the US Landslide11 Inventory and Susceptibility Map and they say they use12 local data and county data and state data to come up13 with that, so knowing that the federal governments14 website thinks that's a highly susceptible site for15 landslides, do you treat it differently than say the16 area that's more orange say?17 THE WITNESS: I look at all sites objectively18 and those maps that you have just cited, they look at,19 it's a very broad brush mapping and the reason they20 paint it red is because all rock is prevalent along this21 area of the state. And it doesn't necessarily respect22 -- doesn't necessarily respect the site conditions,23 which when we do this level of investigation determine24 the strength of soils present and, again, what we found25 62 is that these soils are very dense and they're overall a1 good quality rock. So, so I guess the short answer is,2 yes, we look at all the information that's available,3 but I still develop my, our programs based on-site4 specifics.5 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.6 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.7 THE PUBLIC: Barbara White again.8 Now that I can see the full map, my question9 is, one of the biggest areas of concern as we listened10 to the testimony is that upper point of Building D, that11 one overlooks Howell Drive, etc. So with that in mind,12 I appreciate the fact that you asked to take a look at13 this property and I am curious about why there's no14 selection done at that area? Understand that's a very15 tight pinpoint. Why there as opposed to, why not the16 third test pit and boring at the top of that?17 Based on the testimony of others who spoke18 here, there's approximately, I think nine is the pinch19 point or so at the top. What you see is also one of20 those areas where people who live on Howell

Based on the testimony of others who spoke18 here, there's approximately, I think nine is the pinch19 point or so at the top. What you see is also one of20 those areas where people who live on Howell raised21 concerns, so my question of Mr. Seel is, when choosing22 where the test pits were going to be done, the borings23 were going to be done, was there any consideration to24 doing the upper area? No, down. Upper part of the25 63 building and if it was not selected the question in my1 mind is, why? Because of the slope lines around there?2 MR. PLOCKER: We just want to get a better3 idea of the area she's speaking about. In which area,4 so we have a clear record and we all understand. We5 would definitely like to address your question.6 THE PUBLIC: So if I may.7 Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive.8 So my question is, the upper corner, and I9 believe we can see it better not on this map but the10 report that was submitted, on Page 2 of the letter.11 That was on, if we can go to that, that would actually12 indicate the point I think that we are all speaking13 about. It's on -- so there was a letter with that map,14 it's on page, it's not the first letter, it's the second15 letter.16 MS. MCGOVERN: It's the report, it's in the17 body of that.18 THE PUBLIC: It's -- in the beginning19 there's a little map.20 MR. PLOCKER: Page 2 of 4.21 THE PUBLIC: There it is. Yes, thank you.22 So if we look here, if I'm correct sir, this23 is 700 feet, correct?24 THE WITNESS: That's what it shows, yes.25 64 THE PUBLIC: Up here?1 THE WITNESS: Yes.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay.3 So how, up here, how would you say from this4 corner, that's where we're talking about, where I live5 here, my neighbor is here, my other neighbor is here.6 How many feet is it from here to here? Roughly.7 THE WITNESS: I would say roughly 200 feet.8 THE PUBLIC: Okay.9 I mean, right about 200 you said?10 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. I'm estimating11 200.12 THE PUBLIC: Right. So I think the question13 that we're all trying to understand, from Howell Drive,14 not representing all my neighbors, but since I'm right15 here and my neighbor who is here is not here this16 evening, we're worried about here, in this slope and17 previous testimony we talked about deer fencing being18 extended to protect the vegetation here, so why, why19 wasn't any testing done here? So that's, you said and I20 just -- that was 350 feet between that

s testimony we talked about deer fencing being18 extended to protect the vegetation here, so why, why19 wasn't any testing done here? So that's, you said and I20 just -- that was 350 feet between that line and that21 line and now why don't we test something over here to22 protect this neighborhood and why are we only protecting23 that neighborhood. I think that's unfair, would you24 agree?25

17 of 57 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 65 MS. MCGOVERN: The question can be, why1 didn't he test there.2 THE PUBLIC: Correct.3 Why are we focused on this neighborhood and4 not that neighborhood? And previous testimony this is5 an important area that affects this neighborhood as6 indicated by deer fencing that was proposed to be7 extended. And there was no slope testing done and the8 residents there are, myself as a resident, is highly9 concerned. I would like to understand why this area was10 not taken into consideration?11 THE WITNESS: At the time we were asked to12 look at the, our interpretation is, what we -- is in the13 area that was shown in the report.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay.15 So you were not asked at all to approve the16 area?17 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say asked. Our18 understanding of what the concern was, was the slope.19 THE PUBLIC: So in your professional opinion20 would you think that slope would be important when you21 get to blasting, being that the buildings only closer22 here than it is here. We're talking 200 feet, 300 feet23 to these homes. Would you think that would be important24 to test?25 66 THE WITNESS: Well --1 THE PUBLIC: Yes or no, please.2 MR. PLOCKER: Let him answer the question,3 please.4 THE WITNESS: I don't know if there's rock5 to blast in the north end of the building.6 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry.7 THE WITNESS: I don't believe there's rock --8 I don't believe there's rock to be excavated at that9 north end of the building. From what I recall that end10 of the building is bearing on soils.11 THE PUBLIC: So there's no rock here but12 there's rock over here? I'm not understanding.13 THE WITNESS: There was borings that were14 done by another engineer within the building and rock,15 as I recall, that was six to eight feet deep but what I16 recall is that end of the building it steps down as you17 go from north to south. So I don't believe that there18 was rock intended to be excavated at that north end of19 the building.20 THE PUBLIC: So, again, I was not here for21 your whole complete testimony, I apologize if I sound22 repetitive. But this was to, whatever we're blasting to23 see the effect on the slope and understand what could24 potentially happen or not happen, is that correct?25 67 THE WITNESS: Generally that's correct. To1 understand how the construction of the building affects2 the slope.3 THE PUBLIC: So

tand what could24 potentially happen or not happen, is that correct?25 67 THE WITNESS: Generally that's correct. To1 understand how the construction of the building affects2 the slope.3 THE PUBLIC: So couldn't blasting over here4 affect other parts of the slope that are closer than 7005 feet away? I mean, even if we came from this point to6 those homes that's approximately -- how far would you7 say that would be? If I took that line and turned it, I8 think we're about 700 feet, about, would you agree?9 THE WITNESS: Perhaps less. 600.10 THE PUBLIC: Right. So could blasting have11 an effect on the slope here, in the neighborhood here,12 "yes" or "no"?13 THE WITNESS: Again, I don't control the14 blasting, but if controlled blasting methods were15 utilized then I suspect there would be no impacts from16 it.17 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry.18 THE WITNESS: I said, I'm not involved in19 the blasting, my recommendation is that if anything is20 done that they use controlled techniques to prevent any21 damage to any adjacent structures.22 THE PUBLIC: So would you suggest that this23 area of the slope be tested given that could be 35024 feet? So we have 350 feet and then over here as well to25 68 mitigate any possible issues? Would you recommend that1 as a professional.2 THE WITNESS: We don't have data up here, so3 if that's a concern in the area then additional borings4 could be done to evaluate stability.5 THE PUBLIC: I think the points made,6 there's no data there to sense what could happen to that7 neighborhood. Thank you.8 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Just a couple of points of9 clarification due to some of the other questions that10 came out since I was last here.11 So did you say sir, that the portion of the12 building that's 200 plus feet away from that13 neighborhood at the top of the map will not be secured14 to anything but soil? Did you say it's not going to be15 blasted or anchored in, its just going to be on soil, is16 that what you said?17 THE WITNESS: No, that's not what I said.18 THE PUBLIC: What did you say?19 THE WITNESS: First of all, I'm not the20 geotechnical engineer of record for the building.21 THE PUBLIC: I know but you testified on22 something.23 THE WITNESS: What I understand is that part24 of the building is going to be on soil.25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 69 to 72 of 143 18 of 57 sheets 69 THE PUBLIC: It's not going to be anchored1 into the, from your understanding, it's not going to be2 anchored into -- do you know how deep the soil is there?3 No, you didn't do borings.4 THE WITNESS: No, my understanding is that5 end of the building going to be on soil not rock.6 THE PUBLIC: It's going to be on soil.7 Is there a reason that you chose those two8 particular parallels over anywhere else on that mesa? I9 don't know what to call it.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're referring to lines11 A and B?12 THE PUBLIC: I'm referring to the parallels13 at which they dug test pits or bore -- soil borings. So14 you chose the two parallels out of that entire, I don't15 know how many linear feet that we're talking about that16 that building extends at the edge of that cliff?17 THE WITNESS: It's common practice for18 geotechnical engineers --19 THE PUBLIC: I really can't understand you.20 THE WITNESS: It's common practice for21 geotechnical engineers to determine -- to determine22 density, strength of materials along parallels down23 slope. And when you're evaluating stability of a24 building. So the reason that these, these different25 70 points are aligned is because of that.1 THE PUBLIC: Did you make a statement2 earlier that there were areas that were just so steep3 that you couldn't do those borings?4 THE WITNESS: I didn't say that, no. I said5 we did a combination of assessments in the field for6 accessibility. If there is dense trees or certain areas7 we can't get around for whatever reason, we are8 targeting areas that are more or less aligned so we9 could get data or use our stability analysis and that10 tends to be oriented perpendicular to slope in more or11 less linear arrangement. That's why these, that's why12 you see the borings and test pits aligned along or close13 along two relatively straight lines.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay.15 But there was no reason in particular that16 you chose those two parallels across the site other than17 they just were convenient and accessible?18 THE WITNESS: No, I testified earlier that19 at least in one case the line to the south, that we did20 want to get as close to that, that taller cropping where21 that turned in building is closest to the edge of that22 slope.23 THE PUBLIC: I'm not sure that made that24 much sense to me. I kind of didn't really get