November 10, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

is 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 right?24 Yes. I mean, there are joints underneath, in the25 A. 47 rock underneath the 800 foot length of building and1 beyond on each side.2 So how does one actually protect against this3 Q. enormous length to know that these fractures are not4 either there now or opening up? I mean, seems to be an5 enormous area to protect against. How do you6 practically do this?7 Well, we, we don't know that it does exist and8 A. you would -- and if you don't know and you then -- the9 answer is that that you -- well, this is a condition10 that may exist but we're not sure that it does exist. I11 think that's the best answer I could give.12 Well, you devoted almost a full page to13 Q. discussing it at Page 15 to 16. So you were concerned14 about it to the point where you actually gave a15 professional analysis. So why were you this concerned16 about it if it's something that may not exist?17 Because it's a potential that it might exist.18 A. Is it wise to build on a ridge or next to the top19 Q. of the ridge where this condition may exist that can20 cause the slope to collapse?21 Well, if you don't introduce groundwater into it,22 A. it may not be a problem at all.23 Have you looked at the engineering plans of this24 Q. building?25 48 I looked at -- the structural drawings are not1 A. available, but I did look at the architects plans for2 the building.3 Well, the architects plans don't deal with the4 Q. issue of slope and the voidance of groundwater5 infiltration, do they?6 Sorry.7 A. Do the architects plans deal with this issue of8 Q. --9 No, they don't.10 A. So we don't know that there is anything in these11 Q. plans, as far as you know, that's already in the plans12 to protect against this groundwater infiltration?13 I would expect that they've been involved in14 A. similar projects that they wouldn't advance those plans15 until they got approval.16 Well, didn't you often say in here that these17 Q. plans were only preliminary, these building plans?18 Correct.19 A. So we don't know if they actually built into the20 Q. plans at this point the protection to avoid the problems21 you referred, do we?22 No, we don't.23 A. Okay.24 Q. What is it that Langan has or says they

don't know if they actually built into the20 Q. plans at this point the protection to avoid the problems21 you referred, do we?22 No, we don't.23 A. Okay.24 Q. What is it that Langan has or says they have,25

13 of 28 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 49 that they haven't given you but they say they're going1 to give you?2 They assumed the condition, a more conservative3 A. condition of the groundwater levels on the slope where4 they, they assume groundwater level that's below the5 basin of the topsoil layer, almost to the surface of the6 ground.7 Did they tell you what made them do this new8 Q. remodeling, M-O-D-E-L-I-N-G?9 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object. I don't10 believe anybody indicated --11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.12 MR. PLOCKER: -- that anything new was done.13 Well, it wasn't given to you before, was it?14 Q. They did not give us the results.15 A. Okay.16 Q. And I don't know.17 A. Did they say when they did this?18 Q. No, they didn't. In the conversation I had with19 A. them.20 As a professional engineer does it strike you as21 Q. a little strange that they would have a more conserve22 model to address the very problem that was so obvious,23 but never provided it?24 Well, they formed an opinion that groundwater --25 A. 50 that there was no groundwater condition on the slope.1 And now they have another opinion that assumes2 Q. there's groundwater and that's why you called that a3 more conservative opinion, correct?4 Correct. It was just a test. If I was doing the5 A. analysis it would be a test. What "if" the groundwater.6 We don't know that it would, but it's a what if.7 So you would have done a more conservative8 Q. analysis initially and submitted that as part of your9 presentation?10 I don't know that. I'm not 100 percent sure that11 A. I would.12 Are you of any reason why they would have done13 Q. this more conserve analysis, held it back, not given it14 to anyone?15 I'm sorry if I implied that. I'm not sure that16 A. they did that.17 Well, either they have it now or they had it all18 Q. along or in contest to what Mr. Plocker said, it's a new19 analysis?20 I'm not sure. They would have to explain to the21 A. board when it was done and they would have to, I'm not,22 I don't know enough about it. All I know is they said23 we did it and we didn't include that in the thing.24 That's all I know.25 51 And just to be clear, they didn't tell you when1 Q. they did that analysis?2 No.3 A. Let's talk about the US Geological Map. The4 Q. hazardous map, is that how you referred to it?5 Yes. It's identified as Class B, which is a6 A. lower

tell you when1 Q. they did that analysis?2 No.3 A. Let's talk about the US Geological Map. The4 Q. hazardous map, is that how you referred to it?5 Yes. It's identified as Class B, which is a6 A. lower class of risk and in accordance with hazard7 standards a Class B3, which is for a weakly cemented8 sand or rock -- weakly cemented soil or rock with slopes9 of less than 15 degrees.10 Okay.11 Q. So this particular slope, is it more or less than12 15 degrees?13 The slope, when you get to about middle of the14 A. slope, roughly where the township sewer is, reduces to15 less than 15 degrees.16 And at what point is it greater than 15 degrees?17 Q. From that point up to the ridge.18 A. Okay.19 Q. And what is that angle?20 Those angles are between 20 and 29 degrees.21 A. Something like that.22 So it's a fairly steep change?23 Q. Yeah. You can see it in the contours.24 A. Now, what does the hazardous map that you have25 Q. 52 tell us?1 It's just saying that we, as I said, we could not2 A. find the basis for the hazardous classification. It was3 not, it was not indicated on the map. We checked with4 the New Jersey Geological Society in our files and we5 could not find a report that explained the basis of the6 classification and we went to the USGS and that's7 involved with the shutdown at this point.8 What is it that you would need from USGS once9 Q. they reopened, assuming they reopen someday?10 Just needed what the, what their description of11 A. the actual landslide hazard was. In other words, is12 that rising of the groundwater level to the surface of13 the ground.14 And based on the hazardous map that you have, are15 Q. you able to make that assessment at this point?16 No. We said that we can't.17 A. I just want to clarify.18 Q. So you can't really give an opinion at this stage19 as to that hazard until you have at least consulted with20 the geological survey?21 Well, I don't know anything beyond that. You22 A. would need to check for the background for the mapping.23 Right. You're thinking they may have it?24 Q. They may. But we did search for it, couldn't25 A.

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 53 to 56 of 112 14 of 28 sheets 53 find it.1 But just to clarify. You were not able to search2 Q. for it at the survey because they closed?3 No, we did consult with the New Jersey Geological4 A. Society, I think the USGS did it for the New Jersey5 Geological survey and the New Jersey office didn't have6 the report, that the mapping was based on.7 Based on the map you have is it indicating as to8 Q. a hazard?9 It just said it's a Class B3 weakly cemented soil10 A. or rock with a slope of 15 degrees. That's what it11 says.12 And who wrote that map? Who created that map.13 Q. I think the -- I think it was done by the US14 A. Geologic Society for the New Jersey, and not society15 survey, and for the New Jersey. But I'm really, I16 haven't been able to find the background of that.17 Do you have any reason -- let me go further then.18 Q. What would the Class B hazard mean or amount to,19 assuming that's correct, since you have the document at20 least in front of you, what would that mean, a Class B21 hazard?22 That's what I'm trying to find out.23 A. You mean there's no -- as an engineer does the24 Q. word Class B hazard have meaning to you?25 54 Not to me. It's the first time I've seen it in1 A. my practice.2 What does it mean that the sand is weakly3 Q. cemented, can you explain that?4 Well, it means that there's two components of5 A. strength, there's cohesion and there's friction and it6 has a little cohesion and that, that could dissipate.7 In the presence of groundwater that cohesion could8 dissipate.9 So that begins liquefaction and then --10 Q. Well, I don't know about liquefaction for sure,11 A. but it would just a bond between the particles.12 So if they're weakly bonded water can infiltrate13 Q. and further separate the bonds?14 Further weaken it.15 A. Thank you.16 Q. Have you -- strike that.17 In your report at Page 9, this may be something18 different from the way it sounds, so I want to find out19 what it means. You refer to a fault that is20 approximately 2000 feet from the site. It's in the21 first full paragraph. Can you explain what that refers22 to?23 Okay, that's in the Langan report.24 A. Okay.25 Q. 55 It's on the map in the Langan report and it1 A. refers to a geologic fault, that in which there was a2 significant amount of movement but that would have3 likely occurred ions ago. You know, back in the, at the4 time

in the Langan report and it1 A. refers to a geologic fault, that in which there was a2 significant amount of movement but that would have3 likely occurred ions ago. You know, back in the, at the4 time the earth separated and resulted with the injection5 of these volcanic rock and there was a shift, a6 movement. You can see it on the map that Langan has7 there.8 Why -- does it have any significance in your9 Q. report or is it only noted as a fact of the site?10 It was noted in the Langan report. It's, and11 A. they described it as being -- in other words, it's not12 like the San Andreas Fault that's still active. It's13 not categorized as being an active fault.14 Thank you. I just wanted to clarify.15 Q. Now, you mentioned that your firm was not16 retained to do an independent analysis of the stability17 of the slope in the area of the study. Who gave you18 your instructions?19 The instruction came from our engineer. Our20 A. engineering representative. The Planning Board, the way21 it was explained, we have two opposing reports, can you22 explain to us what the difference is between the two23 reports.24 So you have essentially compared the two25 Q. 56 discussions from the two consultants?1 Correct.2 A. And you addressed them in some way?3 Q. Well, we looked to it as had they touched the4 A. standards of care. Were they using methods of analysis5 to the slope that are in accordance with the standard --6 the current standards of practice and you had, you have7 one engineer who's trying to come up with stability8 results that indicate instability and the results, at9 least as presented in the report, don't, in our opinion,10 indicate instability.11 And you based that on Langan's engineer who wants12 Q. to show stability, isn't that correct?13 Sorry, no. I based it on the safety factors that14 A. were produced by the methods and in accordance with15 standards of practice for evaluation of a slope. Just a16 slope that I got 1.5 is the standard criteria and we17 thought that the criteria proposed by Princeton Hydro18 was not reasonable for this application.19 And your view was that the section of the Army20 Q. Corps of Code dealt with --21 It's not a code, it's an engineering manual.22 A. The Army Corps of Engineering. Your feeling was23 Q. that the 2.0 factor -- let me just get to that section.24 Give me a moment, please. Your feeling was that section25

15 of 28 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 57 EM-110-21902 -- strike that.1 EM-110-2908, requiring a minimum safety factor of2 2.00, would not be applicable to this type of project?3 Correct.4 A. Right. Because --5 Q. That's our opinion.6 A. Right. But then you said that if this project7 Q. was built on the slope it could be applicable. It might8 be wise in that case to use the Munsell method?9 That would be, that would be the way I would have10 A. approached the analysis.11 Now, the buildings only, I think, 7-seven feet12 Q. from the actual ridge line, is that correct?13 No, it's from -- well, the actually ridge line, I14 A. think it's more than 7-feet.15 Well, this has been an issue going through this16 Q. case to define where the building is in relationship to17 the actual high point. Are you able to say how close18 the building is to the actual high point?19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, Mr. Plocker20 wants to say something.21 THE WITNESS: Well --22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Kleinberg, hold on for23 one second.24 MR. PLOCKER: No, I'm saying I don't know if25 58 that was part the assignment or something we studied.1 Obviously the line that we're talking about that we need2 to stay west of pursuant to the ordinance, is in the3 concept plan that was attached to the settlement4 agreement and there's also reference in the ordinance,5 which does describe it. I don't know he was tasked with6 that. I just want to make a clear record, if it's not7 something he reviewed or was tasked with then probably8 shouldn't ask the question.9 MR. AFRAN: No, was the engineer evaluating10 --11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's my turn.12 Let's ask Mr. Kleinberg. Go right ahead,13 sir.14 MR. AFRAN: I am not sure he has the15 question.16 THE WITNESS: I think you're referring to the17 actual knob or the crest of the ridge, and the building18 is, I don't think it's as close as seven, it may be, but19 it's not -- we were talking about the influence to the20 area where the slope begins to drop.21 Right.22 Q. And that's 40 to 100 feet away.23 A. That, because further north there's no building24 Q. and the area where it may drop above those houses?25 59 I'm talking about what they did with their1 A. analysis sections A and B, I think it is. They -- that2 was, those address the building, the actual building and3 the slope that runs further down to the lots down near4 the main road,

with their1 A. analysis sections A and B, I think it is. They -- that2 was, those address the building, the actual building and3 the slope that runs further down to the lots down near4 the main road, but.5 Right. That's above on the northern part of the6 Q. map where there's some private homes below the soil7 boring drops?8 Right. And those homes are relatively close.9 A. My question is this. You said if it was built on10 Q. the slope it would be reasonable to use the higher Army11 Corps standard. Now, my question I guess is, how close12 to the high point of the slope is to close to use the13 lower standard? When would you want to use the more14 conservative standard?15 Well. What Langan did is they did a slope16 A. stability analysis assuming the building is where it's17 shown on the plan and it had no effect on this, the18 computer factors of safety, so.19 And you based that, I thought you said because20 Q. they were above the 1.5 level?21 Yes.22 A. So my question is, if it would be prudent to use23 Q. the 2.0, a more conservative safety figure, if you're24 building on a slope. At what point would you want to25 60 start applying a more conservative approach as you get1 closer to the ridge?2 Oh, if I was 100 feet down the slope. Something3 A. like that.4 We are not 100 feet down the slope, we are5 Q. actually very close to the ridge line?6 Right. And it's more stable there, in my7 A. opinion.8 Okay. So you're saying if it was two slopes, the9 Q. further from the ridge line the more concerned you would10 be?11 Right.12 A. But as you are at the higher point you are less13 Q. concerned?14 Right.15 A. Okay. I wanted to understand what you were16 Q. saying.17 Are you familiar with the term, rockfall?18 Yes.19 A. Like a rockfall zone or catch free zone?20 Q. Yes.21 A. What do those terms mean?22 Q. That means when you have a, like on a highway23 A. slope and the slopes above it and rock comes off and24 falls down to the bottom of the slope, sometimes it25

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 61 to 64 of 112 16 of 28 sheets 61 could actually hit vehicles on the highway, that sort of1 thing.2 The bottom point is often called the toe of the3 Q. slope, is that correct?4 Correct.5 A. So if the toe angles that's the bottom part.6 Q. Now, the rockfall zone would normally be off the7 slope somewhere after the toe, is that correct?8 Well, there would be a certain area that would be9 A. protected and they frequently put up a barrier.10 Now, in this particular instance, if there is a11 Q. danger of rockfall or landslide of anything like that,12 what type of rockfall zone would formally be used to13 protect those houses?14 I don't think there is a condition on the15 A. outcrops. They're not going to do any construction on16 the slope. The outcrops are a maximum 10-feet high,17 something like that. I don't think there is a rockfall18 hazard associated with this project.19 Now, if the slope destabilized through the20 Q. liquefaction and the infiltration liquefaction process,21 what would that mean in terms of the physical stability22 of the slope?23 I'm sorry, could you repeat that.24 A. Sure. If there was water infiltration and then25 Q. 62 you went to the expansion of the joints and the1 liquefaction and destabilization of the slope, what2 would that look like in terms of the physical condition3 of the slope. What would happen to the slope in that4 case?5 Well, I think you, if we were making a lake on6 A. top of this instead of a building, then that could7 occur, but we're not doing that.8 Well, you said if there's joints that open water9 Q. can infiltrate and we have to protect against that in10 someway. That doesn't require a lake, that was just11 normal groundwater?12 Well, no. It would require a substantial supply13 A. of water.14 In terms of a very heavy rainfall, as you say in15 Q. your report?16 Right. But there are mitigating procedures.17 A. No, I understand.18 Q. Are you aware of any mitigating procedures in the19 present plan?20 I don't think the plans have been advanced that21 A. far.22 The answer is no?23 Q. I'm not aware -- the answer is no, I am not24 A. aware.25 63 Okay.1 Q. Now, if you had the infiltration liquefaction,2 etc., what do they do to the slope?3 I don't know that there is liquefaction.4 A. Mr. Kleinberg, I am asking a very simple5 Q. question. You said that could happen, you don't know6 the

liquefaction,2 etc., what do they do to the slope?3 I don't know that there is liquefaction.4 A. Mr. Kleinberg, I am asking a very simple5 Q. question. You said that could happen, you don't know6 the condition?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.8 MR. AFRAN: I'm simply asking one question,9 please.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're asking a11 hypothetical on top of hypothetical and the last meeting12 you argued against talking about hypotheticals.13 MR. AFRAN: No, I said in the last meeting,14 you can't say to a witness, if a opposing party15 satisfies your condition, would you withdraw your16 objection. That is not the kind of hypothetical you17 give to an expert witness, this is. The witness said18 there's a danger of opening the joints, liquefaction,19 collapse of the slope. He said he doesn't know yet20 because he doesn't know where the joints are.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You presented that a22 hypothetical exists. Did Mr. Kleinberg say that these23 open joints exist?24 MR. AFRAN: He said he doesn't know. Well,25 64 he simply said -- he said we should put protection in to1 make sure in case they're there. So my question is very2 simply, if this liquefaction process occur's and the3 slope destabilizes what would happen to the slope? You4 got houses underneath, what would happen to the slope5 versus the homes?6 Well, the houses aren't underneath.7 A. Well, they're below the slopes high point, so if8 Q. the slope destabilizes what happens physically?9 There would have to be some sort of, you would10 A. have to project a failure surface to the toe of the11 slope and that hasn't been done in the analysis, but.12 I'm not asking you that. You said there's a13 Q. concern you have that if you don't know where the joints14 are and we don't know their condition that infiltration15 of water can cause this process and destabilize the16 slope. You said that's a concern?17 I should've said, reduce the stability of the18 A. slope.19 But you said destabilize, I believe?20 Q. I'm not 100 percent sure that would happen, so I21 A. should've said, reduce the stability.22 And when you reduce the stability of the slope23 Q. what happens physically to the slope?24 It may -- there may be a slide.25 A.