November 10, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

17 of 28 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 65 Okay.1 Q. But --2 A. There may be a rain slide?3 Q. But nothing to date has been identified that that4 A. actually would occur.5 Do you know one way or another whether this6 Q. condition exists inside that slope right now?7 No, I don't.8 A. And you're positive as a professional engineer9 Q. that is something we need to consider, isn't that10 correct?11 I did.12 A. Thank you.13 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.14 MR. KLEIN: So you were talking about when15 they excavate for the garage, right? Go down for that16 building and they have to make sure to dewater that17 excavation area. And when they see a fissure or a crack18 in the, I guess it's basalt section, whatever it is,19 they're going to grout it to keep any water from getting20 into that and by dewatering it and grouting it no water21 will go down in it and create this 50-foot edge and22 start giving way to the slope, is that correct?23 THE WITNESS: Right. What we're24 recommending is a prudent approach --25 66 MR. KLEIN: Right.1 THE WITNESS: -- to conditions that could,2 but we don't know actually exist.3 MR. KLEIN: Right. Right. So assuming they4 exist there's ways to keep it from failing. Grouting,5 dewatering, correct?6 THE WITNESS: Correct.7 MR. KLEIN: All right.8 And at present are there any mitigation measures9 Q. by way of redirecting that stormwater away from the10 slope area behind Building D to your knowledge in the11 plan?12 Well, we're recommending that the applicants13 A. engineer take a look at it and come up with mitigation.14 Okay. I want to clarify that. Thank you.15 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.16 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Kleinberg, are we mixing up17 two different things. Is, after the building is built18 there's going to be drainage and there's going to be19 collection of stormwater. While the building is under20 construction there's going to be dewatering and grouting21 and whatever they need to keep that excavation from22 gathering water and letting that water get into these23 cracks and --24 THE WITNESS: Correct.25 67 MR. KLEIN: Talking about two different1 things?2 THE WITNESS: Yes, two different things.3 MR. AFRAN: What do you mean by, two4 different things?5 MR. KLEIN: During construction and post6 construction.7 MR. AFRAN: No.8 MR. KLEIN: What are you asking about?9 MR. AFRAN: That's what I'm trying to find10 out. I'm trying

n by, two4 different things?5 MR. KLEIN: During construction and post6 construction.7 MR. AFRAN: No.8 MR. KLEIN: What are you asking about?9 MR. AFRAN: That's what I'm trying to find10 out. I'm trying to find where the concern of the11 engineer lies. That's the point of my question.12 MR. KLEIN: Okay.13 So the question then is, are there mitigation14 Q. measures that you think the applicants engineer should15 look at necessarily for the permanency of the project or16 just during construction or both?17 Well, for groundwater infiltration it's for the18 A. permanency.19 Thank you. That was my question.20 Q. Talking about mottling, you said there was a21 difference of approach or of analysis between Princeton22 Hydro and Langan and I think you mentioned that Langan23 is the less rigorous engineering approach to the24 question of the color conclusion?25 68 They did not use the Munsell Ink and I'm not 1001 A. percent sure it would have been necessary to use it2 either, but they said they did not see mottling.3 Well, you said that they did a different type of4 Q. color analysis?5 Well, no. This is brown sand, red sand, blue sand6 A. or there's -- the Munsell System gets much more7 involved.8 DEP is the standard of care in this field in New9 Q. Jersey, correct?10 For, for determining a seasonal high water table11 A. for the purpose of mitigation of the infiltration.12 And evaluating mottling, DEPs Munsell chart is13 Q. the appropriate standard, is that correct?14 Right. For the purpose of the stormwater15 A. management, it's not necessarily done for routine16 engineering work.17 But in terms of seeing that infiltration basins18 Q. are correctly constructed and designed the Munsell19 standard is the one DEP wants to see?20 Because, I think, I'm not an expert in this, I21 A. think it's just they have to determine the spacing22 between the bottom of the infiltration basin and the23 seasonal high water table.24 Right, of course.25 Q.

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 69 to 72 of 112 18 of 28 sheets 69 And that's an entirely different purpose.1 A. Right. I'm just asking -- you raised the issue2 Q. of the Munsell chart in your initial presentation, so3 I'm just trying to clarify. DEP says use the Munsell4 chart to evaluate if mottling exists, isn't that5 correct?6 Yeah, for the purpose of determining how high the7 A. infiltration basin is. They're not talking about slope8 disability.9 That's the only reason we're talking about it,10 Q. because it infiltrates the basin at the seasonal high11 water table, correct?12 Well, it has to be a certain distance above the13 A. high water table.14 That's why we're talking about mottling and15 Q. that's why Langan and that's why Princeton hydro talked16 about mottling?17 But on the slope it's not always a concern.18 A. Mr. Kleinberg, I am not talking about the slope,19 Q. you raised the issue of the Munsell chart with respect20 to the infiltration basins, that's what I am talking21 about.22 I was trying to compare the difference in23 A. approach between Princeton Hydro and Langan. Princeton24 hydro went to the extent of talking about the mottling25 70 and so I just addressed what is the difference between1 the two engineers approaches.2 Princeton Hydro followed the DEP Munsell chart,3 Q. Langan followed a different approach, correct?4 Correct.5 A. Thank you.6 Q. What does it mean when you say, at Page 18,7 Langan is questioning the assumed stratification stating8 that it does not consider dense sands on that section9 which were indicated by the board. Can you explain what10 it means?11 On the, on their analysis Section CC, which is12 A. near, I think that's 13. It's above the property, I13 think identified as 13 Howell Drive. That Princeton14 Hydro assumed that there would be medium dense sands15 down to the top of rock, but the borings that Langan did16 indicated that there were dense sands there.17 Oh, so I see. You're saying here that Langan18 Q. questions what hydro said because it saw -- what it saw19 was denser sand?20 Right.21 A. That's all that means?22 Q. Right. And they said that what Princeton Hydro23 A. assumed didn't reflect what they encountered.24 Are you offering your conclusion on this position25 Q. 71 or are you just reporting what the two sides said?1 I am just reporting what the two sides said.2 A. Do you think the appropriate section of

4 Are you offering your conclusion on this position25 Q. 71 or are you just reporting what the two sides said?1 I am just reporting what the two sides said.2 A. Do you think the appropriate section of the Army3 Q. Corps Manual is Section 1110-2-1902 which uses the 1.54 figure?5 Right, that's their slope stability manual.6 A. And you're saying this type of project where it's7 Q. located that would be the appropriate standard?8 Yes.9 A. Now, it's true that Section 3-4 Sub E of that10 Q. section actually requires that, if I could just get to11 that. Well, it says E-1 --12 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, let me have one13 moment. I'm sorry.14 Section E-1 states the following; "Instability of15 Q. natural slopes is often related to high internal water16 pressures associated with wet weather periods. It is17 appropriate to analyze such conditions as long-term18 steady state seepage conditions using drain strengths19 and the highest probable position of the piezometric20 surface within the slope." Now, that's in the section21 of the manual that you say is applicable here. Is that22 referring to the study that you recommended or asked for23 in which you say at number 6, "The applicants engineer24 should pose and perform a stability evaluation using a25 72 conservative piesometric surface that would reflect the1 response of ground water to heavy storm influenced2 rainfall."3 Yes.4 A. Your recommendation is based on that section of5 Q. the manual, 3.4 E-1?6 I -- it stems from the same, the conventional7 A. approach.8 Now, and that's what you say Langan says it has9 Q. but hasn't given you?10 I don't know exactly what it has. I haven't seen11 A. it yet.12 Let me ask you this, if it is in the manual, in13 Q. the section of the manual that applies to projects of14 this nature, wouldn't that be the standard of care that15 Langan should have followed to begin with?16 I'm not necessarily sure of that.17 A. But you recommend following it with respect to18 Q. this study?19 If I was doing the analysis I would do it and20 A. that's why we mentioned it.21 Well, you didn't mention it, you said this is one22 Q. of the things you want them to do, isn't that correct?23 This is one of the things you want them to do, right?24 Yes.25 A.

19 of 28 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 73 Okay.1 Q. And it is said that it should be -- the Army2 Corps Manual actually says it should be done, right?3 Recommends it, yes.4 A. And they didn't actually do it or didn't present5 Q. it one way or the other, right?6 I am not 100 percent sure when they did it.7 A. Of if they did it?8 Q. They said they did.9 A. Okay. But if it's -- thank you.10 Q. You mentioned something here about stockpiling or11 the presence of heavy machinery would reduce the12 stability of the slope, is that correct?13 Could.14 A. Could. So where you say, "surcharges resulting15 Q. from the stockpiling of materials and heavy equipment16 should not be permitted on the ridge immediately above17 the slope to avoid a reduction of the stability of the18 slope." That's what you say in number 4?19 Yes.20 A. And you think it a prudent proper engineering21 Q. position?22 Yes.23 A. Now, you also say equipment -- "heavy equipment24 Q. shouldn't be placed in that same position to reduce the25 74 stability of the slope."1 Yes, I did.2 A. Well, how on earth do you build this 800 foot3 Q. long building maybe seven, eight, ten feet from the high4 point of the ridge without putting this heavy equipment5 in the very place you said it shouldn't be?6 What I'm trying to -- you don't have to7 A. necessarily operate the equipment on the east side of8 the building. It can be done.9 It can be done?10 Q. And you should just avoid running the equipment11 A. on the slope as a manner of prudent practice and we're12 recommending that be included in the excavation work13 plan.14 So as a condition of approval you're saying that15 Q. in construction no heavy equipment should be on the east16 side of where the building will go?17 Well, that's to general.18 A. You said it in your testimony.19 Q. Well, I mean, I think it's, that's a more -- I am20 A. talking about excavation equipment when I made the21 recommendation, not erection equipment for the building.22 Okay.23 Q. So you're saying that heavy excavation equipment24 should not be on the slope on the east part of where the25 75 building will go?1 Right. In other words, operating on the east2 A. side of the building beyond the area of disturbance3 shown on the plan.4 Wait, wait. The area of disturbance you're5 Q. saying that -- let's clarify this. We have Building D,6 it's this long structure 800 feet

he building beyond the area of disturbance3 shown on the plan.4 Wait, wait. The area of disturbance you're5 Q. saying that -- let's clarify this. We have Building D,6 it's this long structure 800 feet long. The right side7 on the drawing map, I think the east side of the8 building, runs along the ridge line, correct?9 Correct, and they show a limit of excavation.10 A. Right. Now you're saying that at the point from11 Q. the limit of excavation on the eastern side of the12 excavation pit that 800 foot strip, there should be no13 excavating equipment from that point to the top of the14 ridge, is that what you're saying?15 That's what I would recommend, yes.16 A. And you recommend that as a condition of approval17 Q. built into this plan?18 If that's -- I said that and I think it should19 A. be, but.20 You were pretty sure of it when you testified,21 Q. why are you having trouble?22 MR. PLOCKER: That's an acceptable condition23 of approval. Absolutely.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him answer the25 76 question, please.1 Okay. Okay. I guess maybe it should be included2 A. in the work plan as a requirement.3 What about if fire vehicles have to go on the4 Q. eastern side of the property?5 MR. PLOCKER: Objection.6 Is that weight that would be --7 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I don't know -- are you8 qualified to answer --9 MR. AFRAN: You don't know my question yet.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I want to find out if he11 is qualified to talk about fire vehicles and its weight.12 That's all.13 Are you qualified to talk about a fire engine and14 its weight? Different size fire engines.15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.17 Go right ahead.18 Are there any -- I heard someone say they would19 Q. be to close because you can't get that close to a drop20 zone, so you wouldn't normally have a vehicle there21 anyway, so that may be resolved. I think we talked22 about it with the architect, Mr. Rizzo, originally. So23 there wouldn't normally be fire vehicles on the eastern24 side. So you're saying to construct this safely, aside25

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 77 to 80 of 112 20 of 28 sheets 77 from other issues, there must be no excavating equipment1 on that eastern part of the ridge?2 When you're talking excavation, talking about big3 A. front-end loaders, so they exceed the loads of fire4 trucks.5 No, I'm not talking about fire anymore. Mr.6 Q. Klein is correct, we talked about that early on, we7 wouldn't have it in the drop zone, so I withdraw that8 question.9 So I want to be clear, so there should be no10 bulldozer, no excavating equipment --11 No heavy.12 A. No heavy.13 Q. Well, how do you define heavy?14 Well, there are bulldozers of certain seizes that15 A. are not heavy and there are bulldozers designed to16 reduce the bearing -- the pressures on the ground that17 they operate on.18 So all this should be a condition of approval,19 Q. that these types of vehicles should not be on that side20 or at least on the excavation plan?21 That's what we said.22 A. Okay. Thank you.23 Q. MR. AFRAN: I have a few more questions, Mr.24 Chairman. Sorry to go so long.25 78 What about the weight of the structure itself so1 Q. close to the ridge line. I mean, if you can't have2 heavy earth moving equipment right there what impact3 does the weight of the structure itself potentially4 have? Because I am very puzzled, on the one hand you5 say Langan says there's no danger to the stability of6 the slope over there from the building and all this7 blasting and all that, then you said, nearly putting8 some heavy equipment on that side is a danger. So it is9 very puzzling to me how you can accept Langan's10 statement there's no danger of stability of the slope by11 putting this massive building there, but somehow there's12 danger to the stability of the slope by putting a13 bulldozer there. Can you explain this dichotomy?14 Yeah, the building stresses are reduced to a15 A. bearing pressure that's less than the weight of the16 heavy equipment.17 You mean at any given point?18 Q. At any given point.19 A. You're displacing it?20 Q. They use footings to distribute the load and if21 A. they extend the footings to rock then the bearing22 capacity is there.23 Have you seen an engineering plan showing24 Q. displacement of weight?25 79 No, I have not.1 A. So you have no idea whether they're going to2 Q. build it correctly or not?3 I assume they're going to follow the codes.4 A. We assumed the Titanic's watertight

ent of weight?25 79 No, I have not.1 A. So you have no idea whether they're going to2 Q. build it correctly or not?3 I assume they're going to follow the codes.4 A. We assumed the Titanic's watertight section --5 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Whoa, whoa.6 MR. AFRAN: You got a problem with that?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, it's a story in8 itself.9 MR. AFRAN: It's a valid point. Engineering10 crisis happen because we make assumptions.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. So we're going to12 assume that all the correct procedures would be13 followed.14 MR. AFRAN: Without an engineering plan15 before the board, so the board can see that.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We are going to assume17 that the building department will have the correct18 engineering plan and all things will be done according19 to the ordinance and the law.20 MR. AFRAN: With respect, that is not how21 the process can work legally. This board has to satisfy22 itself that this --23 MR. PLOCKER: And it's a building department24 issue.25 80 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And we will see1 everything, I am sure, before we get to that point.2 MR. AFRAN: I certainly hope so because3 right now the expert says these possible crisis can4 happen. Says he doesn't know if it could be protected5 against.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, we're going to find7 out.8 MR. AFRAN: I hope so. And it can't be sent9 to the building department after this is approved. This10 board has to satisfy itself that these issues are11 addressed in the plan. We don't have a complete plan.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And we will.13 MR. AFRAN: Well, when are we getting that14 complete plan?15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Keep going, we'll find16 out. The stories unraveling.17 MR. KLEIN: Quick question. So you're18 saying we should be looking at footing designs and19 foundation designs at the Planning Board level?20 MR. AFRAN: When you're building on a ridge21 line that an expert says could collapse if the weight is22 not properly displaced.23 MR. KLEIN: I don't think he said that. I24 don't think he said that.25

21 of 28 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 81 MR. PLOCKER: Now you're really being1 self-serving, Mr. Afran. And you know what, we have2 been very patient.3 MR. AFRAN: Oh, we have been patient, Mr.4 Plocker. Are you testifying yourself as the Planning5 Board?6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Gentlemen.7 Mr. Kleinberg, if there's not adequate8 Q. displacement is there a danger of destabilization of the9 slope?10 I'm sorry. What's displaced?11 A. If there's not adequate displacement built into12 Q. the structure, isn't it correct that there's a danger of13 destabilization of the slope?14 I don't think so. I think the location of the15 A. building is probably far enough back.16 Well, you just said that putting the bulldozer17 Q. there destabilizes -- creates a risk of destabilization.18 Then when I asked you why the weight doesn't -- when I19 asked you why the weight of the building doesn't do20 that, you told me well, it's going to be displaced by21 the different foundational elements. Now I'm asking22 you, if it's not adequately displaced in the engineering23 plans is there a risk of destabilization of the slope?24 I could -- it could easily be designed so it25 A. 82 doesn't.1 And do you see the design yet to show that it2 Q. will not?3 I have not seen the design yet.4 A. MR. PLOCKER: Is that something that gets5 typically submitted to the Planning Board?6 THE WITNESS: I don't think so.7 And in your view can you say as an engineer8 Q. having looked at this problem that this building will9 not create a risk of destabilization when you haven't10 yet seen the displacement design of the plan?11 You can because it was modeled in the analysis as12 A. an average area building load of a thousand pounds a13 square foot. And, which is reasonable and they did an14 analysis with the building in place and without the15 building in place and they yielded the same safety16 factor.17 Have you seen a plan that shows that's the actual18 Q. displacement that will be incorporated into the building19 plan?20 It's -- it is in, at this stage of design it's21 A. common to use an average area of building load, which is22 what they did.23 Have you seen any plan that shows that level of24 Q. building load will be built into the plan?25 83 I think we addressed it in the report that the1 A. load is not extremely conservative, but that it's within2 the realm of reality.3 Have you seen a

4 Q. building load will be built into the plan?25 83 I think we addressed it in the report that the1 A. load is not extremely conservative, but that it's within2 the realm of reality.3 Have you seen a plan that shows that level of4 Q. displacement will actually be incorporated into the5 building plan?6 No, I have not seen a plan.7 A. Thank you very much.8 Q. But it's conventional at this stage of design to9 A. use an average area building.10 I understand that, but you didn't see a plan to11 Q. show that's how it will actually be done?12 No.13 A. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Kleinberg, is it14 normal in this process for the engineers to review the15 final plan before they get a permit to build?16 THE WITNESS: Review --17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Is it normal in the course18 of events for the applicants to provide an engineering19 plan with all the safeguards in place to be evaluated by20 the engineer before they get a permit to build the21 foundation?22 THE WITNESS: Frequently you get a23 geotechnical report with recommendations on what the24 foundation design is and I believe there was one done by25 84 Shore Engineering for this particular structure.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right. Before they get a2 permit to build is it the normal process that it would3 occur by an engineer to evaluate the plan to make4 recommendations to the applicant, is that correct?5 THE WITNESS: Yes.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.7 MR. AFRAN: Could you read that answer back.8 (The court reporter reads back the answer as9 requested.)10 MR. AFRAN: I object to your question Mr.11 Chairman, because it was premised on the fact, all the12 safeguards in place. I was asking about a specific13 problem, as to whether this engineer sitting here today,14 Mr. Kleinberg, could say there's adequate displacement15 built into the plan based on what he's seen. I wasn't16 talking about every possible safeguard. So I think your17 questions quite unjust to the issue I was raising.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I asked a different19 question.20 MR. AFRAN: I know, and the question seemed21 designed to suggest your board does not need to have22 this information.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No, we -- I never24 suggested that, you just did. I asked a question, you25