September 17, 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 11 specifically one example would be in the slope stability analysis, which was in the -- that Princeton provided in their August 12 letter, actually they proved the exact same, I think, point we have been making all along. That the soil and the rock is, is, even with the lower values, that slope is still stable under the existing conditions. There's no influence from the building on that slope and therefore there's no additional instability once the buildings constructed. And also noted as well that in, when Princeton had done their supplemental analysis using our data, the increase of thickness of the weakest soils, which is incorrect based on the data, they also, they also proved that the rock strength does not control slope, which is also a condition or position that we've made and maintained throughout this testimony in our report. MR. AFRAN: It's difficult to hear the witness. If he could either, I'm sorry, speak a little louder. The people are having trouble hearing. THE WITNESS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ladies and gentlemen in the back, if you have a problem hearing please raise your hand. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Can you speak a little louder, sir. There you go.

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 12 A. Thank you. So as I have spoken to some of the, you know, the issues that were raised in the Princeton, in their first letter, they spoke about some of our parameters not matching, actually when in fact they do and we could provide supplemental data that we can layout in detail. In fact our strength values are much higher than the ones that we used in our analysis, despite what was being said. If you put up the surfaces that is the lowest factors of safety on slope stability analysis, they don't go into the rock as it was previously suggested and that's true, not only of the basalt but also the felt fill formation which Princeton had maintained was somehow irrelevant to this analysis. Princeton had made a comment that the geologic hazard review was dismissed and which of course it wasn't. We were very clear in our position on the geological hazard for the site and the rock, the rock outcropping and the stability of the slope. They acknowledge that there was favorable joint, which we had reported, and we had seemed to -- MR. AFRAN: Favorable what? I didn't hear. THE WITNESS: Favorable joint in the rock. MR. AFRAN: Thanks. A. Which tends to control stability of hard 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 13 formation such as this. So there's quite a bit of inconsistency and misalignment from the testimony that they made in their report. And my report -- our, our report, I believe, clearly demonstrates. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: What does misalignment mean in your expertise? THE WITNESS: So meaning their statements that were made were perhaps misleading or, or not properly made based on the data. And, and despite their own analysis showing that the site or the slope is stable they maintain the position that it is not or may not be despite their own analysis showing that it is. Q. Okay. MR. PLOCKER: I have nothing further for Mr. Seel. Q. I just wanted to confirm that all of your collusions and testimony you provided tonight are contained within your September 15 report? A. Correct, it's all in the report. MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions? MAYOR McCARTNEY: I do. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Seel, when we were listening to 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 14 testimony from Mr. Goll -- MR. AFRAN: Mayor, people can't hear you. Also people on the right side can't actually see all of the screen because it's angled at a certain way. So Mayor, if you could speak up we'd appreciate it. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Mr. Seel, my question was that over the summer when we were listening to this testimony there was testimony on blasting. So can you address that, this is slope stability? THE WITNESS: Yeah. Of course. Yeah. This is also contained in our report and the way we -- so first of all, why we would had never recommended that blasting be done. Blasting is one method of excavating. There are many other methods of excavation. There are mechanical means such as excavators, rock ripping teeth dozers with shanks, splitters, hoe rams. There's the use of chemical expanders that are drilled holes into the rock and quick line and some other fillers into it, basically cracks the rock and breaks it. There's controlled blasting which limits the charge per day. The amount of charge provides precise sequencing of blasting and spacing patterns for the holes. All these methods are used to, to not just to sequence the blasting but also to minimize the rock break and impacts to the rock beyond the blast zone. So these are all

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 15 different types of methods that are available. In our report we outlined some of the values that are available using different contexts of GSI values. For example, up to certain values are typically found to be associated with conventional excavation versus GSI values over a certain amount might typically be chemical standards and/or blasting and, you know, below a certain value might simply just be conventional or some combination of conventional excavation. So I address all that. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, can you speak up a little, please. A. One of the key takeaways in that case was Princeton Hydro had suggested that the rock is bored, which it's not and, you know, the GSI value of 20, which their slop stability analysis clearly shows it doesn't impact the stability, but if the GSI value of 20, if the rock really is that bad, no ones blasting anyway. So I think what has to -- what I know has to happen here is that once the contractors brought on board they're going to evaluate the data and they're going to develop their own excavation plan for this project -- (pause for sirens) -- I was concluded, so I will repeat the last statement just in case. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead, Mr. Seel.

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 16 Sorry for the interruption. A. No, that's okay. So what I was saying was, we had, using the GSI value of 20, what Princeton was suggesting in that case, the rock would not need to be blasted, it would just simply be excavated using conventional methods. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein, do you have any questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony? MR. KLEIN: Yes. So Mr. Seel, where you drew that red line in the upper right-hand corner of Exhibit A-5 Page 2. It seems like, if you moved down a little bit to the bend in the building, that might be a little bit closer to the building itself. It would be closer to the top of the slope. Does that -- if you were to move it down and do a cross section like you did on the left, where it's closer, would that change your conclusions about the influence of the foundation? THE WITNESS: I understand your question. So first of all, that red line is drawn as part of the exhibit, the architectural exhibit, I just utilized it. But to answer your question, if we brought it down to where the, where the buildings closer, you simply slide the building closer towards the slope but it's -- 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 17 building still is behind the dashed vertical black line and there would be no influence on the slope from the building. MR. KLEIN: Where would the blue trapezoid have to be in order for it to influence the slope? THE WITNESS: On the slope. MR. KLEIN: Give me an idea. Underneath the first tree? THE WITNESS: First tree. MR. KLEIN: Okay. So the intended building would have to be located between the dash line and the first tree? THE WITNESS: Correct. The building clearly in every instance is behind or to the left of the black dashed line by varying amounts. As little as seven feet and as much as 30 or so. MR. KLEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do you have any questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony? MS. KAPFERER: Thank you, Mr. Seel. Yeah, I have the same question as Mr. Klein did. Curious about the foundation influence and, you know, proximity to the ridge and wondering if the cross section is closest to the that ridge line? My other question was in regards to 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 18 sanitary sewer. I think there was a comment in Mr. Goll's letter, maybe he testified to it as well, concern about the existing sanitary sewer being total slope and, you know, being a bit unsure as to what the back fill would be, you know, at the time back filling, didn't know that the housing development might go on top of the slope. So just wondering if you have any comments on that? THE WITNESS: We did. We, our initial analysis of that condition is that it's not in play similar to the rock itself. When you look at our slope stability output files you will see these semi circular arcs. Those represent the lowest factors of safety that are calculated when you're doing an analysis. They simply go into rock and they don't come close to the sewer. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. THE WITNESS: So in other words, they don't -- the sewers not under the influence of the slope. MS. KAPFERER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do you a question for Mr. Seel on his testimony? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mr. Alper, do you have a question for Mr.

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 19 Seel on his testimony? MR. ALPER: I do. Can you go to Page 1 of the document. So where it shows that that's a, that the foundation stress area is 40 feet deep or it extends 40 feet. THE WITNESS: That's arbitrary but that would represent, for example, if there was a strip footing that is four feet wide, ten times that depth the stress is about six percent. So in other words, if it was, you put 3000 pounds per square foot on the square footing you'd have 6 percent of that recharge, which is about 40 below ground, which is less than a person standing. MR. ALPER: Would the influence -- if it goes deeper for whatever reason, is there a point where the right side of the trapezoid extends down into the slope like about 60 or 80 feet? THE WITNESS: No, that influence line is the outside limit of the influence from the footing. MR. ALPER: Okay. It would -- THE WITNESS: In fact it -- MR. ALPER: -- continue on down infinitely? THE WITNESS: Correct. Would actually start to curl. It'd probably curl back.

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 20 MR. ALPER: Okay. That was all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes, do you have a question for Mr. Seel on his testimony? MR. WILKES: No questions at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Council Person Scarpa, do you have a question for Mr. Seel on his testimony? COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, just quickly. You made a broad statement about inconsistency and misalignments of Princeton Hydro's report. There were a couple -- you made a broad statement about inconsistencies and misalignments, could you be a little bit more specific? All I heard was that in your opinion the slope is stable, but are there other concerns that you have? THE WITNESS: I don't have any concerns about our analysis. I was simply making a statement that there was, that there was, the way that Princeton had approached their analysis of the data, they made, for example, one cross section, he created a very thick section of a weak soil, simply doesn't exist in our data. So it was a misrepresentation of the data, number 1. But also it was misaligned with the fact that they're saying our values are much lower and we