October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

5 of 59 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 17 not saying it's impossible, but it would seriously1 affect the site layout and could require a serious2 design change. We didn't have my guy further but anyone3 that looks at the way the site is laid out, it is not a4 lot of spare room. They're trying to keep it tight to5 try to preserve as much of the woods as possible.6 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That was the same question7 that I asked CME at the last meeting.8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do you have10 any questions on the testimony?11 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.12 Thank you, Mr. Walsh. A few questions.13 Regarding the mottling issue, did you look14 at all of the soil surveys?15 THE WITNESS: I did look.16 MS. KAPFERER: And were you kind of looking17 at soils and the water table?18 THE WITNESS: The USDA soil survey?19 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah.20 THE WITNESS: We have in our record, O-30, we21 have two soils that we looked at from that survey. The22 report.23 MS. KAPFERER: Did they indicate the depth,24 you know, what the anticipated depth to the high25 18 groundwater would be?1 THE WITNESS: Let me -- give me a second to2 check. It doesn't specifically state where they expect3 the elevation in this report and they must have printed4 out a slightly different report. I can provide that to5 you and to the board. I apologize, it just doesn't say6 here.7 MS. KAPFERER: That would be great. If you8 could provide it.9 THE WITNESS: Tomorrow.10 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. That's great.11 One other question regarding the time of12 concentration. Do you know, were you able to say that13 the method that was used for their existing condition14 versus proposed condition, like was it, was the method15 consistent, I don't know, do you recall?16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I believe the17 method was not consistent. I believe for the proposed18 condition they used the entire forecast. It would be19 very different though because once developed it's a much20 smaller, larger set of sub watersheds, so it would be a21 very different flow path. But I don't think -- I22 believe I checked that but I would need to go back and23 double check, but I don't think that any one of those24 they ever used a fraction of the flow path for the25 19 proposed condition.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the record show that2 Council Person Scarpa just joined the board. Thank

think that any one of those24 they ever used a fraction of the flow path for the25 19 proposed condition.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the record show that2 Council Person Scarpa just joined the board. Thank you.3 MS. KAPFERER: I think you referenced in the4 materials there was time of concentration calculations5 and you said they only used half the flow path?6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.7 MS. KAPFERER: Was that an existing or --8 THE WITNESS: That was the existing9 condition, yes.10 MS. KAPFERER: And then so are you saying11 that in existing conditions that in the runoff that's12 calculated at the points of analysis was that it would13 be higher than, than it would had been if they had used14 the full flow path?15 THE WITNESS: Yes. It would be like an16 artificially higher peak flow rate.17 MS. KAPFERER: And so then you're saying18 when you compare the existing conditions runoff to the19 proposed conditions runoff that the required deductions,20 do you have any sense of whether --21 THE WITNESS: So that's actually a little22 more complicated because, you are right, that flow in23 the proposed condition would be lower. Like it's a24 different scenario because the land use changed25 20 dramatically and also those, all those peak flows go1 through a basin, so the basin is having a significant2 impact on the peak flow. That's the whole point of the3 basin, to reduce the flow. So you're right there, but4 there's a lot of math intertwined. So I think it would5 be hard to show like a direct connection there, but,6 yeah.7 MS. KAPFERER: Did you look specifically at8 a point of analysis at Warner Road at all?9 THE WITNESS: I think Warner Road is where it10 splits, in the mottling they don't split it. That's the11 watershed that has two points of analysis, but they only12 -- there's two different drainage points but they only13 have one point of analysis.14 MS. KAPFERER: I think that's my questions.15 Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do17 you have any questions on Mr. Walsh's testimony?18 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: No questions at this19 time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any21 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?22 MR. ALPER: Thank you. Just one.23 You're optimum method in the analysis is the24 land use standard, you're using one to explain or is it25