November 10, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 29 to 32 of 112 8 of 28 sheets 29 One question regarding the slope disability1 analysis. You mentioned that at times that heavy rain2 falls somethings accounted for in the analysis. How,3 how does that change the analysis or how do you go4 about --5 THE WITNESS: What -- the way the6 groundwater works, if you, you assume what's called a7 phreatic surface, that's where most atmospheric pressure8 occurs and down below, then below that you start to9 develop pressures that would get into the rock joints,10 or that they lower the frictional resistance of the11 soil. In other words, friction is kind of weight times12 sandpaper or whichever. If I reduce the amount of13 contact pressure on a given surface, I do that by making14 the soil buoyant. And in some cases you can build up15 excess pressures. For instance, if that particular16 location is connected by a rock joint the groundwater17 level which is 60 feet higher, you're going to build up18 a very high pressure there that could, it could even19 liquify the soil if that occurred. We don't know that20 that those joints exist, but it's always a potential to21 be considered. There's nothing yet indicated in the22 record that they exist. The, when and if the building23 is excavated they should have experts to characterize24 the bedrock that's exposed in the slopes and to check25 30 for jointing systems that could lead to a problem and1 grout them or do something to mitigate the, the2 possibility that water generated by the infiltration3 system or otherwise would create one of those4 situations.5 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you.6 And one question about the soil mottling.7 How is it determined or how does one determine when that8 is present? You know, when you're out in the field.9 THE WITNESS: I think it's explained in the10 Princeton Hydro report pretty much in detail, but you11 get blotches on the, when you look at the soil on the12 sides, you dig with a -- where the backhoe digs in and13 leaves a smooth surface a lot times on the edge and you14 could see patches of gray in certain areas concentrated15 within the range of a couple of feet and the people who16 are sent out to do these things frequently visit17 training courses that are given to identify the cut and18 there's a pretty rigorous method for describing the soil19 colors. The Langan borings -- the Langan test pits just20 used what are

tly visit17 training courses that are given to identify the cut and18 there's a pretty rigorous method for describing the soil19 colors. The Langan borings -- the Langan test pits just20 used what are more, much less rigorous engineering cut21 color. In other words, brown, gray and did not notice22 any particular secretions or blotches of materials in23 the test pits. So, and I think in the rebuttal report24 they contended that they were not noted and that they25 31 were not noted because there's not a groundwater1 condition on the slope.2 MS. KAPFERER: Does the DEP require a3 certain analysis or, I know there was a color chart that4 was referenced?5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, the Munsell Color Chart.6 MS. KAPFERER: Is that what the DEP requires7 when analyzing a soil boring or mottling?8 THE WITNESS: That's a standard that they9 apply and it's mostly, I think DEP is for the, for the10 mitigation of -- for the best management practices, you11 know, in order to assure that ground is, infiltration of12 groundwater models the current condition before13 development. But they reference that system in their14 standards.15 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Thank you so much.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do17 you have any questions for Mr. Kleinberg on his18 testimony?19 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr.20 Chairman.21 So thank you for being here tonight and your22 explanation. Is there anything out there, anything that23 you haven't received, anything that warrants test pits,24 site evaluations, is there any information that you do25 32 not have that would have a significant impact in your1 evaluation?2 THE WITNESS: Langan indicates that they are3 going to be providing analysis for the, assuming that4 this groundwater level rises near the surface and they5 say that's forthcoming. So we should have that to6 review and they should provide an analysis as to whether7 the installation of an infiltration system at the top of8 the slope assess the impact of those, of those systems9 on the potential for influencing the stability of the10 slope.11 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any13 questions for Mr. Kleinberg on his testimony?14 MR. ALPER: I do.15 In your recommendation Mr. Kleinberg, Page16 19, you're number 6 is that the applicants engineer17 should propose stability evaluations and conservative18 the service reflect the response

PER: I do.15 In your recommendation Mr. Kleinberg, Page16 19, you're number 6 is that the applicants engineer17 should propose stability evaluations and conservative18 the service reflect the response of groundwater and19 heavy storm rainfall. So is that something you need to20 see?21 THE WITNESS: That's what I -- and Langan22 indicates that they have done that. We just haven't23 seen the actual output of the results and they say24 that's forthcoming.25

9 of 28 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 33 MR. ALPER: Okay. Good.1 My other question isn't necessarily for you,2 but I might as well raise it now, might be a bit of a3 can of worms. The recommendation of long term measures4 should be required to maintain health of the forestry on5 the slope, which I think is a good recommendation. But6 that slope is in the deer fence area that isn't to be7 disturbed, is that something we can require? Does that8 lead, does that lead to opening up something to get that9 done.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Make it a condition of11 approval, yeah.12 MS. McGOVERN: All 11 recommendations can be13 recommended.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes.15 MR. ALPER: My concern is if you're allowed16 to require maintenance of trees within that area?17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.18 MR. PLOCKER: Just for the record, the 1119 conditions at the end of Mr. Kleinberg's report would be20 acceptable conditions for the applicant in the field.21 Obviously a lot of them are construction related, we22 have many different sources that we're bound by to23 follow post approval activities and we definitely would24 agree to make those 11 conditions part of it.25 34 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Mr. Plocker.1 Do you have anything else?2 MR. ALPER: Just I want to be careful3 because there's a suggestion maybe for Mr. Defeo, that4 that area is to never be touched at all. If one of the5 requirements is essentially listen, if trees start to6 die five years down the road, they've got to be replaced7 because the roots are so important to maintain the soil8 that that can be A, should be done and will be done and9 B, that it's permitted to do it.10 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Are you talking about11 disease also?12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.13 MAYOR McCARTNEY: We talked about disease14 too.15 MR. ALPER: Sure.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.17 MR. AFRAN: Yes. I just want you to know18 that I appreciate Mr. Plocker saying at this time we19 agree to those conditions of approval. We don't20 necessarily agree that they're only conditions of21 approval. We're going to study them, alert the board to22 any position we have that they must be part of23 affirmative proofs, but I just wanted to note we are24 reserving our position as to whether we agree they're25 35 conditions of approval rather than things to reflect1 evidence that must be presented. We're simply reserving2 our position at

note we are24 reserving our position as to whether we agree they're25 35 conditions of approval rather than things to reflect1 evidence that must be presented. We're simply reserving2 our position at this point.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So noted. Thank you.4 MR. ALPER: Thank you. That's all I have.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have6 any questions for Mr. Kleinberg on his testimony?7 MR. CARDOZA: My fellow board members asked8 all my questions.9 Thank you, Mr. Kleinberg.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel Person Scarpa, do11 you have any questions for Mr. Kleinberg on his12 testimony?13 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, I have one14 question. Seeing this is not an exact science and since15 we need to be really thorough in our assessment, you16 talked about during the excavation that it has to be17 dewatered all the time. And what if it isn't, and what18 happens to that slope if it becomes unstable, and who19 would be responsible for that should something happen?20 THE WITNESS: Well --21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: And how do we make22 this dewatering happen as needed?23 THE WITNESS: Well, that would be, I know24 how it works on capital improvement projects. Let's say25 36 if you were doing a library or something like that and1 there were professionals involved, say CME, we would2 write a specification and enforce the specification to3 do that. I don't know how that works when there's an4 agreement between a developer and contractor, whether5 the developer is going to be as stringent as let's say6 the professional working on the capital --7 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: That's my concern8 obviously.9 THE WITNESS: Right. I'm not quite sure,10 unless the, I don't know whether the township engineer11 would be, I guess usually it's the building department12 that follows those things in our experience, but they13 don't necessarily get involved in that.14 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: So what mechanism15 could be used to ensure that dewatering happens?16 THE WITNESS: Well, I think we had17 recommended that they submit an excavation work plan18 that when we -- and an excavation and dewater work plan19 prepared by a registered professional engineer who would20 be responsible to, I can't use the word ensure, but21 responsible to check that the contractor is actually22 following the plan.23 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Thank you.24 THE WITNESS: And report that to the25

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 37 to 40 of 112 10 of 28 sheets 37 building department or the county engineer. I don't1 know how the municipality would set that up.2 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Okay. Just an area of3 concern.4 THE WITNESS: No, understood.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Council Person6 Scarpa.7 Mr. Wilkes.8 MR. WILKES: Yes. You mentioned the wells,9 did you read of the wells to give you a better10 evaluation?11 THE WITNESS: Well, if they did install12 wells in order to determine groundwater levels, you13 would have a lot more information than is currently14 available right now. There's really, there isn't15 anything that positively pinpoints whether there's16 groundwater or no groundwater in the records. And that17 is kind of typical in areas that are underlain by rock18 because things vary because of the jointing on the rock.19 MR. WILKES: Is there anything that we can20 put in as a condition to get those readings as far as21 stipulations to continue with the project?22 THE WITNESS: It wouldn't in our opinion be23 -- it would be a good idea to do that in order to24 address the issues that were raised for groundwater and25 38 groundwater infiltration.1 MR. WILKES: Okay.2 Now, you mentioned blasting, was the3 blasting a recommendation or was that what you guys4 think --5 THE WITNESS: No, that's not a6 recommendation. It's an economic decision and, again,7 that's -- it's kind of a time factor and if you don't8 blast it's going to take a lot longer to excavate, so9 the blasting is usually used to increase the ease of10 excavation. This rock is particularly, for some reason11 the strength of the samples that were actually, were12 particularly weak for this type of rock. But this type13 of rock is usually extremely high strength. It's like14 25 to 30,000 PSI, that's almost at the same compressor15 strength of steel. So it's very rough on the equipment16 to excavate and so blasting is usually used to make it17 more economical to complete the excavation.18 MR. WILKES: Do you think the blasting will19 be so significant it would affect some of the other20 slopes in the area? I mean, based on how the rock is,21 based on that.22 THE WITNESS: Well, I think what we're23 recommending is that they apply a very, very24 conservative criteria to determine the amount of25 39 explosive that you would put into the blasting hole.1 Into the hole. So we're recommending that the

recommending is that they apply a very, very24 conservative criteria to determine the amount of25 39 explosive that you would put into the blasting hole.1 Into the hole. So we're recommending that the blasting,2 if it is performed, that they look at distances to the3 area to be protected which is the top of the slope is4 only 40 to 100 feet away. So that would result in a5 much smaller blasting charge than would otherwise be6 required. If you were just worried about a house that7 was 500 feet away, it probably would have no influence8 at all on the size of the charge at that distance.9 MR. WILKES: Okay. All right.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.11 Council Person Scarpa.12 Ms. McGovern.13 MS. McGOVERN: I'm sorry, I know you14 mentioned a condition that you suggested, something15 about basins, Mr. Wilkes?16 MR. WILKES: Yes. The wells, I want to make17 sure we have a condition in there, because I want to see18 if he needed more information to make a better19 evaluation.20 MS. McGOVERN: Is that already included in21 your conditions or is that an additional?22 THE WITNESS: We recommended monitoring.23 MS. McGOVERN. Okay. I just wanted to make24 sure it wasn't something else.25 40 MR. WILKES: I just wanted to make sure it1 was in there.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa.3 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, could this4 project be done without blasting?5 THE WITNESS: I believe it could.6 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Would that be a7 condition that that not happen, because that's a real8 concern of the residents?9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm going to leave that up10 to the experts. That's beyond our understanding.11 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Would you recommend12 that if this was in your backyard?13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think we got testimony14 before that each methodology has it's own risks.15 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think that's correct.16 There are other effects, if like the, we -- I mean, I17 happen to live near a basalt slope and it is brutal the18 amount of ramming and vibration, the equipment that had19 to be used to get the rock out without blasting, but it20 is doable.21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: From an environmental22 standpoint, I'm thinking which would be better for the23 residents of that neighborhood.24 THE WITNESS: I mean, it's always25

11 of 28 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 41 concerning. When properly controlled blasting might be1 effective in reducing the amount of disturbance, if it's2 properly controlled.3 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: You have pollution and4 all those toxins in the area?5 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I don't know.6 I can't speak, I'm not an expert in this. I'm not sure7 that it does give off emissions. I would suspect it8 doesn't, but I am -- I mean, it would, there would be9 mats placed on top, you wouldn't see a big, you know,10 like somebody set off a bomb or something like that. It11 wouldn't be like that. There would be mats placed on12 the -- there would be standard procedures. It is a13 safety precaution because the rock --14 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Has to be seepage into15 the air.16 THE WITNESS: Rocks get thrown in the air17 and that could cause injury, but not 400 feet away.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Just point of19 clarification. I know what the answer is but I want you20 to say it. You've been using the word basalt, can you21 define the word basalt for the public and some of the22 members of the board?23 THE WITNESS: Okay. Basalt is just a name24 given to an intrusive igneous rock which is, which is,25 42 it's the molten material from the center of the earth.1 The earth kind of tears apart due to tectonic and this2 material is released and comes up and basalt is one3 type. If you go further east of the Palisades it's not4 basalt, it's diabase and it has to do with the grain5 size in the rock. The diabase on the Palisades is6 actually much stronger and much less fractured.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Second question. The8 first part of this project was West Essex Highlands 1,9 so would you imagine, as an expert, that the rock base10 is similar in the first part as for the second part?11 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm not, I'm not really12 familiar -- if you had a map to put up.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Don't answer then. It's14 okay. Thank you.15 MR. KLEIN: That was a good question.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Every once in a while I17 have them.18 Okay.19 MAYOR McCARTNEY: One more question.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.21 MAYOR McCARTNEY: So one of the22 recommendations you mentioned the discharge over the23 slope. So my understanding is that all of the basins24 are to the west?25 43 THE WITNESS: There are two basins1 immediately adjacent to the west side of Building D and2 they're

he discharge over the23 slope. So my understanding is that all of the basins24 are to the west?25 43 THE WITNESS: There are two basins1 immediately adjacent to the west side of Building D and2 they're designed to infiltrate a certain amount of water3 into the ground and the rest would go out in accordance4 with the provisions that the DEP prescribed.5 MAYOR McCARTNEY: So then really nothing6 would be going over the slope?7 THE WITNESS: Right. Shouldn't be any. It8 would be, you know, if there was no monitoring of the9 excavation it would be convenient if nobody's looking to10 throw a hose over the slope. Mostly I'm talking about11 construction, but the grading, at least as it's shown on12 the plan, it keeps water from flowing over the top of13 the slope.14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you for the15 clarification.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.17 Ms. Apte, do you have any questions?18 MS. APTE: Not at this time.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, would you --20 I'll take that as a yes.21 MR. AFRAN: That was a yes, I'm sorry.22 Mr. Kleinberg, good evening.23 Q. Good evening, sir.24 A. Thank for your presentation.25 Q. 44 I'll just start with one of the last points you1 raised since it's fresh in my mind. You mentioned2 earlier recently about the joints and the entry point of3 infiltration and basically you suggested as that process4 continues it's going to cascade internally and cause5 slope failure?6 It could lead to higher pressures downhill, yes.7 A. Higher hydrostatic pressures and what would the8 Q. higher hydrostatic pressures do to themselves?9 Sorry.10 A. What will the higher hydrostatic pressures lead11 Q. to?12 It would act like a hydraulic jack. Let's say13 A. you had rock pushed together and then all of a sudden it14 feels like, let's say you had 50 feet of head to where15 the water is entering the rock you'd have like a 3,00016 pound per square foot jack pushing the rock apart.17 And that's what we're destabilizing?18 Q. Right. And then if that rock joint daylighted --19 A. it wouldn't daylight, but if it came to the surface of20 the rock and was injected into the soil it could start21 to act as a jet and, and then breakdown the soil22 immediately where the joint intersects the soil23 overburden.24 And is that what is called liquefaction?25 Q.

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 45 to 48 of 112 12 of 28 sheets 45 That could lead to liquefaction. When you reduce1 A. the effective stress in the, in the soil. In other2 words, the sand grains are put together there's enough3 pressure in there you subtract the actual pressure and4 you subtract the hydrostatic pressure from that and if5 the hydrostatic pressure exceeds the pressure confining6 the soil then it liquefies. It becomes quicksand.7 And this would be on the slope immediately below8 Q. Building D?9 That's a condition that could occur. I can't10 A. guarantee that it would occur.11 Well, you said --12 Q. No, just something that you would caution -- you13 A. could caution to protect against in the construction.14 Now, this process is a permanent process,15 Q. depending on the existence of joints, is that correct?16 Permanent to the extent that the joints don't get17 A. clogged with something over time, that could occur.18 Right. In other words, this is not just at19 Q. factor of the construction process, it's a factor of the20 natural status of the slope and the rock?21 Right. There are existing joint patterns and22 A. then the concerns in construction is that the23 construction disturbance would create additional cracks24 or enlarge the cracks that already exist.25 46 Now, this process I think it was Mr. -- I forget,1 Q. one of the board members did ask, is there any natural2 existing condition already that could cause soil3 impacts. This condition exists already, correct?4 I'm sorry. Whether there are joints that would5 A. transport water, we don't know, it's not indicated.6 There's only, the only rock you could see is what's the7 limited amount of outcrops that are on the slope. It's8 something to be guarded against. It's a condition that9 could exist and you would want to guard against it in10 your planning for construction.11 How do you guard against it if the condition12 Q. naturally exists already?13 Well, you wouldn't want to introduce water into14 A. that location and you would grout it. If you could15 identify it and see it, say in the excavation you come16 across a joint that's wide then you would try to fill it17 with grout and plug it up.18 This is an 800 foot long building, is that19 Q. correct?20 That's correct.21 A. So in other words, this potential exists along22 Q. the entire 800 foot length of the building on that23 ridge, isn't that