August 13 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 21 that the higher factor of safety a severe consequence should be followed. And in this case none of the factors of safety, even the ones that were developed by Langan, let's use their information, do not even meet the standard of care of the 2.0 slope stability. Now, with that said, the slope may exist in that condition naturally, it may just have a low factor of safety. But as you recall, the Army Corps of Engineers recommendation in their manual are concerned about the erosion, seismic loading and blasting loosening of the rock and that's their concern. And so if the factors of safety naturally are already low, again, you're all aware of other rock slides in the area, not pertaining to this specific site, but there have been rock slides that have been induced both by construction activity, but sometimes just by, you know, weather induced conditions, you know, excessive rainfalls and things like that. So this is already a slope that has a potential for not, for not being stable and now they're proposing a building which is going to be right next to it and doing excavations and potentially blasting through these slopes. So I wanted to just bring this up and I brought this to your attention so that you guys can have this to review, and I can take any other questions.

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 22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. MR. AFRAN: I have a quick question. I just want to clarify. Q. In your understanding Mr. Goll, to what extent is the Army Corps of Engineers standards and manual representing the standard of care in the engineering profession? A. All engineers and geotechnical engineers follow that standard of care. It's something that we reference off of. So it's something to go by. A lot of other organizations also then refer to the Army Corps of Engineers or American Society of Civil Engineers and other professional organizations in the engineering field. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions? MAYOR McCARTNEY: Trying to formulate a question with all this information. So it sounds like what's described here, though it says the factor of safety is 2.0, so you're under that but from a geotechnical engineer is there a way to shore it up? What would have to be done to -- THE WITNESS: You'd have to do an extensive program, going in and stabilizing it, putting in rock

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 23 walls -- MR. FAGAN: You need a microphone. THE WITNESS: You would have to go and do an extensive program of, you know, rock holding or something to stabilize those slopes to ensure that they are not going to fail. If you ever drive along a highway where they've done some rock cuts, you'll see these bolts and these plates against the side, that's what they usually -- that's what that means, is that there's actually a long rod that's sticks into the rock that's been drilled in to try to stabilize those areas. So that means they didn't have to extend their limit of disturbance and do an extensive stability program on this slope. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do you have any questions? MS. KAPFERER: I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Vice Chairman Guarino, do you have any questions? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, I have a question. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your presentation, sir. Just

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 24 from your professional experience, are there any processes or construction or any pre things that can be done to offset any potential failures that you're saying are present at this property? THE WITNESS: Well, as I stated, you could do some engineering reenforcements with all of those slopes on that eastern side of the property. So you probably have to clear out trees, go in or clear areas of that slope to go in with machinery that would then drill bolts in or do some type of stability that would reenforce those slopes to get up above the 2.0. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: So there are things, other than natural barriers and stuff, things can be done prior to construction and adjustments and reenforcements can be done before construction starts that would prevent any of your highlighted failures? THE WITNESS: That is -- well, yes, but I don't see any type of methodology being proposed in the application, nor is there a limit of disturbance extended beyond that. So my -- in my understanding of the situation, there will be no work in that area. Which wold also increase their, potentially their requirement, back to their DEP permits and materially change this application. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay. Thank you,

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 25 sir. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any questions? MR. ALPER: Yes. So when you're talking about rock bolts in place, were you just say the work would have to be done outside of the allowed area of disturbance for that to happen? THE WITNESS: That is correct. MR. ALPER: Okay. Your GSI that you used when you did the number, it says 20, what was Langan's? THE WITNESS: 65. MR. ALPER: 65. And is your 20, is it a conservative number, is it the worst possible number? THE WITNESS: There's a table that we use to figure -- that corollate the GSI numbers and the RQDs, and so you look at it, if it's zero to 25, for example, it's this, it should be this and so you go down the line. So we tried to make it equal to or at least match what is recommended. MR. ALPER: Okay. Is there a definition of a major rock slope as used in -- where it says, for major rock slopes with a consequence of failure is severe. Obviously the

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 26 consequence of failure is severe, but does this qualify as a major rock slope? Is there a definition and if there is what is the definition? THE WITNESS: Well, I would say it's a slope that potentially can cause damage and be significant -- have significant impacts. That's a pretty major rock slope. MR. ALPER: So it's not -- there's no definition that requires -- THE WITNESS: There's not a regulatory -- it's not a regulatory, you know, definition. It's just their recommendation. MR. ALPER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, do you have any questions? MR. MacNEILL: Thank you again for your testimony. Just a quick question. Have you identified any noncompliance based on the township zoning code? THE WITNESS: Your township did not cover geotechnical stability, except I would imagine they're required to provide a design and involvement that is safe for the public. MR. MacNEILL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel Person Scarpa, do

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 27 you have any questions? COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Haizel, do you have any questions? MR. HAIZEL: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any members of the public have any questions? Please raise your hand, be identified. Come on up, sir. State your name for the record. THE PUBLIC: Orin Knights, K-N-I-G-H-T-S. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead. THE PUBLIC: And this question is posed to this gentleman right here. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes, sir. THE PUBLIC: As far as the stability of the area that we're talking about, I know in April 5, 2024 we had a magnitude of 4.8 earthquake. I happen to be home that day and it actually shook the house. And just recently August 5 we had a 2.7 I believe it was. It also shook the house. So when you talk about the boring that's going to have to take place, the blasting I believe it is, you're going to have to blast that area? THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know the exact

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 method of excavation they're going to use, but the rock is deep enough that they'll have to -- they'll spend a lot of time using a hydraulic hammer or an excavator versus using blasting. Using blasting is the most efficient. THE PUBLIC: So you mentioned about the slope, because in my recollection building number 4 that they're proposing to build is actually at the edge of the slope. And in addition to that, that's going to be a building along with a swimming pool on top, I believe it is, which in my estimation is going to cause even more impact in that area because of the weight from the water. So what I'm asking is, in lieu of what you just said, and with the earthquakes that we had just recently and a few years ago, on Northfield Avenue we had that rock slide and it moved the building. In your estimation do you believe if we were to have another major earthquake with those particular buildings on top of that area, can it compromise to the point where it causes a rock slide, and number 2, this is my last question to the board. If there is damage to homes from the blasting, who's responsible for the houses, for the residents houses? Is that going to be something that's going to be put in escrow? Who's going to be responsible if our foundations are being damaged by the

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 blasting? That's my questions. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Can you answer any part of that? THE WITNESS: The answer is, I don't know. I mean, it depends where the earthquake center is, what the situation is. Could it be exacerbated by the building. Maybe. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. Come right up. State your name and ask your question. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Nancy Meyerowitz, Howell Drive. Picking up on that question, would one of the options be to move Building D so it wasn't sitting on top of that steep slope? THE WITNESS: That's what I testified to the last time. If they moved it back, I don't know, 50, 100 feet, something like that, maybe this slope would be a little bit better protected. The further they can get back the better. THE PUBLIC: My understanding is this project was grandfathered into the current steep slope requirement. So if a builder had to comply with the current steep slope would this project be approved or meet the current steep slope requirements? THE WITNESS: I don't know. I didn't look 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 30 the steep slope ordinance for this particular analysis. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have questions? Come up and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Hi. My name is Valerie McCarthy. Are you aware of where 15 Howell Drive is located in, relative to the proposed development? THE WITNESS: I am not sure. 15 or 17 -- I am not sure. 15 or 17, it's right in the corner there. THE PUBLIC: Correct. I live at 15, which is right at the corner. And I just want to understand based on your analysis of the building closest to my property. If the excavation process and the blasting would be standard in terms of its impact on my property relative to standard development and building, would it be a greater impact in terms of potential damage to foundation or would it be standard for any development that would go up? THE WITNESS: I am not sure what you're asking. THE PUBLIC: So in normal development that's