July 16, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 We are here right now focusing on the site information he is providing about this site as an geotechnical report. MR. AFRAN: I think he was giving examples where people appeared to be following the rules and problems emerged and that was the point I understand his testimony was focusing on. That even where you have people following the rules there are intangible factors, for example unstable rock that you're not seeing because you're misstating the report and he is saying even where you're following the rules because it is intangible factors you could have problems. He's entitled to go into that subject by analogy. I don't think Chair, you have the right to limit his testimony. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He used the term, over blasting, is that following the rules as an expert? You used the term over blasting in your description, is that following the rules. THE WITNESS: Yes and no. It's not following the engineering design -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Stop right there. MR. AFRAN: Let him finish. He said yes and no. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The question was, is it following the design and he just said it's not following

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 the design. So in that case, not this case, things could go awry anyplace. MR. AFRAN: With respect Mr. Chair, you're cross examining yourself. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am asking him a question. MR. AFRAN: You asked if his example was following the rules. He said yes and no. He said they were following the engineering design and then you interrupted him and said, Okay. So following the design. You asked him if they're following the rules. There is a difference between following the state rules and following the design. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead. THE WITNESS: What I was trying to say, to clarify. When -- if something gets over blasted or deeper than they expected, it's not a violation of the state regulation, it's a violation of the engineering design. It basically throws all our parameters, design parameters out the window. So that's why I'm saying there's a separation there and that's why, from an engineering standpoint, all that should be approved with the right protocols in place and not left with the state regulations, which is -- which are perfectly valid for making sure nobody gets hurt while they're blasting but

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 it's what happens to the rock when you blast it. It's the engineering standard not a public, not a state regulation. That's all I was trying to say. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. That was the point I was trying to bring out. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Is there anything in the report that would lead you to believe that from what you've seen from the design that they would be anything less than what is supposed to be done? THE WITNESS: Well, yes. I am concerned because the report basically used the most competent information that they found on site and applied that all across the site and all the slope stability, so therefore right now they don't know what the actual factors of safety are for the slopes. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. That's what I am trying to get to. So the public and board hears that piece of information. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Bagoff, I couldn't hear you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That information is of value. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead. THE WITNESS: That's essentially my testimony. The geotechnical investigation is limited in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 scope, so was my review. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir. MR. AFRAN: That concludes Mr. Goll's presentation. I have no questions at this point, but obviously the board may and the public may. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. So we are going to start with Mayor McCartney. Do you have any questions of the witness on his testimony? MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you. You raised an important consideration -- MR. AFRAN: Mayor, I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MAYOR McCARTNEY: I thank you for your testimony. You raised some important considerations. One in particular was the impact of the wastewater management utility line and would that create an unstabilization. My question is, can the average on the chart provide stability? Is that -- is this, are these typical conditions found when developing a site across a slope? THE WITNESS: Well, every site is different. So for example, if this building maybe was setback 100 feet or 200 feet away from the slope, it might be on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 more competent rock and not necessarily back of the slope. For example, some towns, and I'm not familiar with West Orange's ordinances, some towns have like distance requirements from edges of slope so they don't cause it to destabilize the slope. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Our ordinance does that but that was adopted after this. THE WITNESS: All I'm saying is there's an ordinance and then there's also a, you know, a physical concern. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran wants to say something. MR. AFRAN: I think the witness was answering affirmatively but nodded and didn't say yes to the Mayors question. The Mayor asked you a question, can you answer yes or no because you just nodded and the record won't show your answer. THE WITNESS: Answer -- MAYOR McCARTNEY: My question -- my question was, on the chart here on Page 3 the average of the strengths. THE WITNESS: Actually the chart, in looking at the chart of the quality would be on the plan. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Well, I'm am talking about

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 strength though. THE WITNESS: Yes. MAYOR McCARTNEY: The strength, you take the average does that provide stability when developing across a stream? THE WITNESS: Well again, you have to take in account all the factors. That strength is accounted for. Like I said, the geotechnical engineer did the analysis, actually used what strength they found in the field on those competent materials. However, they didn't combine that with the conditions of the rock in the highly fractured condition. So if you go back to the chart, the table on the previous page, the rock quality, Page 2, the lower rock quality designation would have a very large impact on the geological -- the geological structural index and show a much more fractured material which would have a lower factor in which would then reduce the stability of the slopes and may or may not lower it to an unstable condition. Did I answer your question? MAYOR McCARTNEY: No, just raises more questions because then in number III where it said "The need to have an appropriate GSI factor that will truly dictate the overall stability of the slope." THE WITNESS: Correct. That is correct. So

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 that is -- that was one of the bigger issues we found in the analysis, it is not using -- what was found in the field and applying the correct GSI. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein. MR. KLEIN: All this is just focusing on Building D? THE WITNESS: That's all I was asked to do. MR. KLEIN: Okay. So you don't know if there's issues with the other buildings? THE WITNESS: I don't. MR. KLEIN: So is there, is there a way to build a foundation -- so the lack of stability has to do with the blasting and the excavation portion of it. So if they blast too much they're going to get a rock slide. If they didn't take into account the lack of stability the rock may slide when they start excavating, is that what you're saying? THE WITNESS: That's one of the concerns. But also, even if you do everything neatly and cut it out and change the configuration, now, like I said along that entire length of building when they excavate down into rock that sort of like a triangular piece if you will. This being the slope and I'm sorry to --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 basically my right-hand is showing the slope and my left-hand being vertical being the foundation of the building, you now isolated that bedrock. So what does that do in terms of stability. Can it stand on its own or could there be potentially like, for example, drainage issues or things like that getting into the rock now that it's unstabilized. MR. KLEIN: Is that when they were saying the rocks are tilted uphill, so it was less likely? THE WITNESS: They were saying that, but they also looked at the superficial exposed rock, but if you look at the rock below grade, the grading down slope, they're in an entirely different condition. MR. KLEIN: So even though the upper rocks on the slope are tilted up the toe of slope is where you're referring to it is going to erode? THE WITNESS: So what we do when constructing a slope -- MR. KLEIN: Well, you're not constructing this. THE WITNESS: No, I'm going to explain. This is sort of the physics of it. When you build a slope you can't build from the top down. Until you start dumping material over it. A slope needs something as you build it up to support it. So if the material at

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 the toe of the slope, that's the most critical part, material at the toe of the slope or down halfway through the slope, if that material is much less competent that's where it's prone to failure and if it slides it can't support the material above. So I don't think an incline in that bedrock that they observed is necessarily indicative of a stable slope. MR. KLEIN: So during construction are they going to, if they took more samples -- so let me ask you this question. So did they not take enough samples? Did they not take enough samples. THE WITNESS: They didn't take a lot of samples across the, across the cross section. Some of them don't even go, they go like on the top, above this top slope. MR. KLEIN: Wish we had a visual like on your slide. You're talking about the S shape? THE WITNESS: That's the building. MR. KLEIN: Right. And the slope goes down? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KLEIN: You don't have this slide here? THE WITNESS: No, it's the Langan report. MR. KLEIN: This is your slide show. That's not you, Princeton Hydro? THE WITNESS: That wasn't me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 MR. AFRAN: That's from hydrological. It may be the same building but that's -- MR. KLEIN: All right. Never mind. All right. THE WITNESS: So actually if you look, and again, this is the Langan report, I know this is not good for the record, but when you look at the cross section that they analyzed nothing was taken over here. MR. KLEIN: And that's the toe of the slope? THE WITNESS: And nothing over here. This is the toe. There's the utility line. MR. KLEIN: All right. So what are they missing if you go further east? THE WITNESS: More borings. MR. KLEIN: As you go further east of Building D it starts to slope down or up? Down. THE WITNESS: Building D it slopes down. MR. KLEIN: Right. So you're saying they didn't go far enough to get to the toe of the slope? THE WITNESS: Well, actually the majority of my report basically used information I had to make an analysis. MR. KLEIN: I was going to get to that next. All right. So the borings are there. The data is there. You could have reanalyzed it or too much effort