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 61 you notice a vibration? THE PUBLIC: Yes, and could it -- could they feel it within their house and could it potentially do any damage within their homes? THE PUBLIC: Well, I'd say we all can sense vibrations, sure. But the purpose of a controlled blasting program is to prevent them from being detrimental. MR. PLOCKER: And is that what the regulations are designed to do? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. THE PUBLIC: Could the vibration be similar to an earthquake? THE WITNESS: Well, it's a different type of vibration. So, again, the intent of the program is to prevent any such damaging effects. That's all I can say for that. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have any questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Gilda Paul, Howell Drive. Thank you for your testimony. I especially appreciated your explaining the difference between 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 62 1.5 number, I believe, and the number, the 2.0 number from Princeton Hydro. And I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. So if I understand you correctly you're saying that neither the 1.5 nor the 2.0 number guaranties that the slope won't collapse. That the difference is based on the amount of damage that would be done if the slope collapsed. So the U.S. Engineers base it on, because the damage, you said would wipeout a whole city, they require 2.0 and because if this slope happened to collapse it would only wipeout maybe half a dozen houses, 1.5 is an adequate number, is that what you're saying? THE WITNESS: No, that's not it. 1.5 -- a factor safety of 1.0 means that the forces that tend to drive failure are equal to the forces that tend to resist failure. So at 1.5 you're 50 percent higher, you know, 50 percent more resisting forces than you have driving forces. At 2.0 you have twice the number amount of driving -- of resisting forces relative to the driving forces. So in both cases the slope is stable. THE PUBLIC: So why would they U.S. Engineers have a different number than you, if that's the case? THE WITNESS: Well, the U.S. Core of Army Engineers they -- I suppose you have to ask them why

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 63 they have such a high number. It could have to do with the way they analyze or their consultants analyze conditions. THE PUBLIC: I may have misunderstood. I thought you said something like the dam could take out a whole city, but maybe I misheard. THE WITNESS: No, I did not. THE PUBLIC: No. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other member of the public have any questions? Come on up, state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Your name for the record and you have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Marea DePalma, Lapis Circle in the Highlands. I have a question. The three ways that you are planning on excavating with the chemicals, blasting and I can't think of the third one. How -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry. Mr. Plocker wants to say something. MR. PLOCKER: Yeah. I don't think his testimony was that we plan on excavating those ways. I believe Mr. Seel gave examples of the different means and methods --

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 64 THE PUBLIC: Forgive me. MR. PLOCKER: -- of excavation and that the exact means and excavation would be determined by the contractor in the field pursuant to applicable regulations. MR. AFRAN: If I may. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Seel's testimony was there are a variety of methods, he didn't rule out any. So the question from the public -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's be fair. He didn't rule in any. He said there are methods. That's all he said. MR. AFRAN: Correct. Now the questioner is asking about the methods in the universe of methods that Mr. Seel is referring to. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's fine. MR. AFRAN: Quite a proper question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's fine. I didn't say no. MR. AFRAN: I'm responding to Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: And I believe the question presumed that he suggested that certain methods would be used, and I just wanted to make clear that that was not his testimony.

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 65 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Seel, did you recommend one method over another or did you say there are many methods? THE WITNESS: No, I'm not recommending one over another. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead. Ask your question. THE PUBLIC: So whatever method is used how will that effect the people in the Highlands, where I live, over this long project, air quality, for us to be healthy and breathe all that in. It's a long project, there's going to be a lot of dust in the air. It's going to be -- if you use chemicals that would be in the air. How does that protect us, our children, our pets. How is -- where is our guarantee that we won't be affected by it health wise? MR. PLOCKER: Did you testify that things were going to be in the air? THE PUBLIC: A chemical would be if it is used, wouldn't it? I mean, you can't put a chemical in a bubble. THE WITNESS: Well, the contractor will have to choose the best available methods for the project requirements and this is for the duration, as you pointed out, of the project.

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 66 THE PUBLIC: I can't hear you. THE WITNESS: I said, the contractor will have to select the appropriate means and methods of excavation, cleanup, all those things to be compliant with all the regulations that he's subject to for maintaining health and safety. THE PUBLIC: So would we be notified of that or do we find out after it's all started? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You can answer the question, sir. THE WITNESS: Well, it's not my -- my understanding is you will -- I don't control the contractor, but I understand that all the regulations that will be set forth for the construction are to be complied with. MR. PLOCKER: In addition to our obligation to do so under the settlement agreement with the Township of West Orange, we will 100 percent provide notice, timing, it will be on the website. There are many things that we have agreed to that we will continue to abide by in good faith. THE PUBLIC: So not only will that be in the area of us, it will be in -- it's not going to stay right where we are, it's going to be in all the surrounding, Essex Fells, Roseland, it's going to travel

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 67 with the air, it's not subject to just us. The wind blows this way, the wind blows that way and all those chemicals will be traveling wherever, you know, however the wind -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, you're testifying. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Well, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other member of the public for the first round, anybody have first round questions and hasn't been -- come on up, sir. THE PUBLIC: Just one follow up question. Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive. Going back to the safety factor of Princeton Hydro suggesting 2.0 and to using 1.5. Since our homes are at the bottom of the slope shouldn't more conservative standards be applied to protect our safety? THE WITNESS: Well -- THE PUBLIC: I mean 1.5 -- THE WITNESS: 1.5 is a industry standard used in all residential/commercial construction. And our analysis even utilized lower strength values than we could have. So the fact is safety that we could have calculated in our analysis could be considerably higher

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 68 than 1.5. THE PUBLIC: At this point being, maybe just staying conservative, but what else would you recommend to give us a piece of mind not only during construction, which has been focused on, but five to ten years from now as things will change, what else can we recommend? I know there's things in place but there's things that we can be -- we're being conservative and that's where fears are coming from, because we have two professional engineering reports with conflicting comments and conflicting giving us not a piece of mind. So what else would you recommend that be in place now to give us that certainty during and then after construction in perpetuity? THE WITNESS: I don't have anything else to add. THE PUBLIC: Okay. MR. PLOCKER: Does the risk of failure change from pre to post construction? THE WITNESS: No, it does not. THE PUBLIC: What does that mean? THE WITNESS: It means, as I've testified, the factor of safety, the stability of the slope of the existing condition doesn't change after the building is put in place because there's no loading onto the slope.

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 69 THE PUBLIC: But you're talking about load. But what about, and I'm going to add to the conversation, if I may. What about environmental, the 100-year storm, a slight earthquake, wouldn't that contribute to it? THE WITNESS: We analyzed the stability of the slope under seismic conditions. We analyzed the stability of the slope under saturated conditions. And it's still stable. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members of the public -- come right up. THE PUBLIC: Deborah Butensky. So the question I have is, this isn't like using a laser, what is the lateral effects of whatever modality is used, what are you trying to excavate? How far laterally, how many feet. THE WITNESS: It's -- typically the methods are fairly controlled and the impact is finite. It's within -- it's maybe a few feet you get -- THE PUBLIC: Well, How many is a few? You only have seven at certain points. Is it beyond seven? THE WITNESS: You have seven -- well no, not in my experience. No. THE PUBLIC: So what, in your experience, what is the maximum spread?

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 70 THE WITNESS: As long as the material -- as long as the methods that are used to excavate are controlled the -- we're talking about really no over breaks, so it's within, I don't know, a foot or two at the most. THE PUBLIC: And the other question is, what is the role of the geotech person with the developer? You guys recommend what they should use, how do you guys interact? THE WITNESS: Are you talking about -- well, at this stage, are you talking about during construction? THE PUBLIC: Both. THE WITNESS: So we are asked to provide services, which in this case is to analyze the stability of the slope and we made recommendations -- we analyzed conditions and made recommendations. During construction, if we were to be retained, we would have a specific scope of work and that might be monitoring or inspecting some activity. THE PUBLIC: Do you make recommendations as to modality for excavation? THE WITNESS: We make recommendations on the type of excavation that would be appropriate or that could be used and then the contractor has to choose. We