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 29 They also should have used the quality, the actual quality or at least an average of the quality of material that was at the lower end of the slope. Because that's really, the lower end of the slope, the toe of a slope is what really is supporting everything above. And they should have broken out the cross section to be -- to reflect that. When you average that out, because several, they couldn't even collect samples, we made the assumption that the RQD is zero. And so you get an average RQD on these lower areas of rock cores of basically 23 or less, it's actually about 20 when I created the average which would then drive down that GSI which would then in combination with that disturbance factor, significantly reduce the factor, the factor safety of resistance to failure on the site. While Langan also stated that they used a uniform loading of a thousand PSF for the model -- for the building, basically across the whole building, they considered it far enough away from the top of the slope to have a surcharge impact. However, the proposed building sits right on top of the slope of this area and so there would be an impact of loading on the slope. They also didn't discuss or provide in the modeling, I mean they talked about an excavation of 25