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 28 happen if they actually would use something more realistic, let's say using an average of all RQD's down slope that were found and just as a function two of the borings by the way, the rock was so weathered they went down 50 feet in one and 45 feet in another and they didn't hit anything that could be core. In other words, they were able to grind through but the material was so broken up and weathered they were able to grind all the way down. They couldn't do a split spoon sample because there was too much rock there, but they also couldn't do a core sample because it was highly fractured that it was not collectible by a rock corer device. What does this mean. What it means is the slope stability analysis they provided is not showing an analysis based on what's actually out there. Another thing that they did, and one of the things they did do, which I do agree with, is they used a disturbance factor in the slope stability, it's another factor. A disturbance factor describes the potential impact of construction or disturbance on the slope. They did use one which is highest. However, what would have been the adequate thing to do was use that disturbance factor of one, because they are going to blow the top of this mountain in order to get down to 25 feet, they need to get to the bottom of this garage.