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 41 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One at a time. THE PUBLIC: My question, thank you for speaking. My question was blasting versus not blasting and at what point do we know whether there's, you know, controls over it or not? Blasting versus no blasting. That's what I would like to know. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Seel, would you explain that again, please. THE WITNESS: Well, based on the data that's available the contractor would develop an excavation plan which would identify the appropriate method for the various areas, and there may be other contributing factors and there maybe other influences, limitations in doing one over another and I can't speak to that. THE PUBLIC: And if the blasting affects my home, what happens to like -- MR. PLOCKER: That's not within his testimony. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's not in his -- true, not in his testimony. If he can answer. THE PUBLIC: That's okay. I don't want to waste my time. I get a couple bonus minutes or seconds. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Bonus points, there you go. THE PUBLIC: The -- with respect 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 42 discussion regarding the ground, I'll call it the steep slope, I understand that's a dynamic piece of land, it's not like one day it's exactly the same as another, in fact over time through erosion that, that slope actually changes. This might be similar to the question I just asked, but in terms of your responsibility and others who have created this plan, who's responsible when the building comes down because of miscalculations in the, the steep slope, the proximity to the slope, the changes in the ground, the changes in the degree of slope, who's responsible for that when the building falls down? MR. PLOCKER: It's not within his testimony. MR. AFRAN: Call Mr. Plocker. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him just speak. MR. PLOCKER: I'm just saying, she's allowed to ask questions about his testimony. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right. MR. PLOCKER: He did not testify as to any responsibility or liability based on hypotheticals. THE PUBLIC: Well, I guess it goes to the question, who wrote the report and who's responsible for the contents of the report. You testified that you wrote the report. You also testified that you didn't do those drawings contained in the report, that the architect did those and you relied upon those drawings

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 in making some of your decisions about what you wrote in the report. THE WITNESS: I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me if am I responsible, is my firm responsible? THE PUBLIC: No, I didn't ask that. I asked who is responsible for the contents. You testified that you did the report, that you didn't do the drawings. Based on those drawings some of your recommendations, some of your writing in your report were based on other peoples work that was included in the report. So who's responsible for the building when it comes down? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If you can answer, you can. If you can't answer, you can't. MR. AFRAN: I don't know what the question is. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. THE PUBLIC: I can repeat it. Dr. Bagoff, you would actually understand this because as a surgeon if I do something and I make an error based upon somebody else's work, in my work, I am still responsible for the work that caused say a problem in a procedure. So Dr. Bagoff I think understands that. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'll speak to that. There's a lot of variances in what you just said and 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 44 know that. So to this, there's a report that's been written and it's based on his license and that's all any expert can do is have a report based on their license. THE PUBLIC: So I'll ask the question again. So you wrote this report and did you not write the ancillary data that formed the drawings by the architect that you used to form some of your opinions in your report, correct? THE WITNESS: Our report stands on it's own merits based on the data. MS. PANNULLO: The document drawing -- THE WITNESS: The drawing is simply an illustration to try to help folks understand that there is no load that can shed directly onto the slope. That's a simple illustration. THE PUBLIC: And you wrote the entire report by yourself? THE WITNESS: No, there's another signature on the report. THE PUBLIC: I didn't see that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other questions? THE PUBLIC: I think I am out of time, yes. Thank you for your indulgence. MR. PLOCKER: We'll indulge you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much.

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 Go right ahead, sir. THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive. Mr. Seel, quick question, did you have the opportunity to walk the property and walk the slopes? THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. THE PUBLIC: Okay. When was that? THE WITNESS: Couple, two, three occasions during and after the initial report. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So on this slope does the soil govern the stability or does rock govern the stability? THE WITNESS: The soil. The soil governs the stability in this case simply because when you run the analysis the critical failure surfaces don't extend into the rock. THE PUBLIC: So, so what monitoring or instrumentation might you propose during and after construction to confirm no adverse eroding occurs? Are you not recommending any or are you. THE WITNESS: We have not recommended any at this point. THE PUBLIC: Would you recommend based on the analysis of to different highly viable firms?

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 THE WITNESS: Well, what I expect ultimately to happen during the excavation portion of the work there would be some form of monitoring that would be implemented. We are not involved in that. THE PUBLIC: Right. But the monitoring came up in discussion on blasting, not on adverse load occurs with the soil governing the slope stability. So what would be more stable, a rock governing it or the soil governing it? THE WITNESS: Rock is generally stronger than soil. THE PUBLIC: Right. THE WITNESS: Right. So the limiting material is typically the soil. THE PUBLIC: So your recommendation is not to have any monitoring with adverse load effects at this time? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE PUBLIC: Okay. THE WITNESS: Well the -- what we suggest typically is that there's a monitoring program when excavation is done, especially in special terms of blasting, but not necessarily for slope stability. THE PUBLIC: Right. But -- okay. If controlled blasting is ultimately

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 required what mitigation plan exists, if any or none, for vibration, over break or potential slope damage and should there be a plan in place? MR. PLOCKER: Again, I believe that's outside the scope of his testimony. But Mr. Seel can go ahead and answer if he wants. THE PUBLIC: He did mention there might be potential blasting. I'm not saying -- MR. PLOCKER: Absolutely. THE PUBLIC: Yeah. THE WITNESS: And in the case of blasting we've always recommend that there be a monitoring program and that would typically involve seismographs often to make certain measurements. THE PUBLIC: In your rebuttal you kind of downplayed the utility trench affect. But did you evaluate the long-term potential for water infiltration along that trench, considering the slope instability? THE WITNESS: We -- I have to go back and look specifically at our latest analysis, but we did saturate the entire slope at one point and showed it was still stable. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And I guess I tried to make heads or tail of this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I don't say I'm

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 48 100 percent right. But I believe that your threshold safety factor 1.5 and Princeton's suggesting 2.0, is that correct? THE WITNESS: That is correct. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So why the difference, you know, why did you choose 1.5, why are they choosing 2.0 for a safety factor? Under what regulatory or cite specific guidance is there to determine this, because obviously that's what skewing the numbers, correct? Or changing the numbers. THE WITNESS: It's changing the interpretation. Typically 1.5 for a permanent slope is what's used in this type of -- in this application. What Mr. Goll of Princeton had recommended was 2.0 based on the U.S. Army Core of Engineers for Critical Structures such as dams where there's a huge horizontal load on a structure that if it failed would wipe out an entire community. That is not the case on this project. THE PUBLIC: So I guess two more questions. Your conclusions are based on new borings and test pits and additional tests pits that were done close to the homes on Howell, but how could we be confident those samples represent the whole slope, especially since rock quality and soil strength vary from place to place?

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 WITNESS: Both Langan and Princeton evaluated various conditions using lower strength values in our soil and there are decomposed rock than the data suggests. Princeton used very low soil parameters, soil rock parameters and in their analysis they even thickened the weakest of the sections using the lowest of the strength parameters and it was still stable. THE PUBLIC: So I'm trying to understand here, are you saying or accusing Princeton of misrepresenting or misapplying data or are you basically saying that your differences is a professional judgment rather than an outright error? THE WITNESS: I can't speak to Princeton how they came up with that section, but based on our review of the data there's no section that has such a section or sequence of soil. THE PUBLIC: So is it misrepresenting or misapplying data? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're not going to go there. He presented his facts, he didn't use any of those words, so let's not imply something that's not there. Thank you. Do any other members of the public have any questions? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes.

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 Go right ahead, sir. THE PUBLIC: Donald Ershow, I live in Roseland and I drink the water from the Essex Fells Water Company, which is affected by the area. I have a question regarding the blasting that you had spoken about and how, if I understand correctly, there doesn't have to be a type, from what you had testified, there doesn't have to be a type of blasting that some people are concerned about. And you had mentioned that there are some chemical expanders, I think you had said, and other methods. What does that mean? THE WITNESS: So couple things. One is, there's been a lot of talk about blasting and people do have, I perceive, concerns about how the blasting would go. Typically blasting, in my experience, is that it's not typically loud. It is, other than the vibration, you rarely even know that it occurs and that perhaps speaks to the perception being, you know, what we normally see in the industry versus some exceptional case, which I understand from the public would be a concern. Chemical expanders are another product that's used. It's usually a quick line, there's an aluminum component, iron component, silica and it's simply you drill a whole, you drill a whole into the