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 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