December 10, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 61 to 64 of 144 16 of 55 sheets 61 Because it's a precautionary step that we take.1 A. And you would take the higher standard -- Factor2 Q. of Safety standard in some instances, right?3 If there were -- the name of the manual that4 A. you're referencing is Rock Foundations and there are no5 rock foundations on the slope that we're talking about.6 When you refer to seepage, seepage into what?7 Q. Seepage?8 A. Yeah. You say, "We agree" referring to the9 Q. analysis of seepage parallel to the slope. What are we10 seeping into?11 That's a worst case analysis.12 A. No, no, no. My question is, what are we seeping13 Q. into in this sentence?14 Into the soil primarily. Mostly -- primarily the15 A. soil overlying the rock.16 And you're saying the worst case analysis where17 Q. there's a 100-year storm?18 No, I didn't say that was the worst case.19 A. Well, you said an extreme event and when I asked20 Q. you what you're referring to, you referred to a 100-year21 storm. So what are you talking about?22 Well, that would be an extreme event.23 A. Okay. Thank you.24 Q. You should engineer to take into account25 62 something like a 100 year storm, which is really not1 that uncommon, isn't that correct?2 Well, I think the -- this is a situation we don't3 A. even know can occur.4 You just said in Plainfield we had the problem?5 Q. Well, you had the rain, yes.6 A. So you had rain and the rain is what leads to the7 Q. fear or risk of the collapse because it's an extreme8 rain event, isn't that correct?9 Extreme rain events can cause slope movements.10 A. And we had one two months ago?11 Q. Right.12 A. Right.13 Q. And I'm not aware that there was a slope movement14 A. associated with that storm.15 We don't evaluate the risk only if the crisis16 Q. occur's, do we?17 No, but it would indicate, it would indicate that18 A. the slope is resistant to that type of event.19 So you need to see a crisis in order to know20 Q. whether to use the higher safety factor?21 I'm sorry, repeat that. I need to see a22 A. crisis --23 I'll move on. Well, I guess I won't move on.24 Q. I'll be fair to you and ask the question again.25 63 Are you saying that you would evaluate this for a1 higher safety factor only if there was an actual2 catastrophe?3 No. A situation is likely -- situations like4 A. this, you know, are not, they're not long lasting. So5 you, it's considered

this for a1 higher safety factor only if there was an actual2 catastrophe?3 No. A situation is likely -- situations like4 A. this, you know, are not, they're not long lasting. So5 you, it's considered to by a lower factor of safety for6 events that are not -- for instance, this references7 here, last seismic event to use a reduced safety factor8 of 1.2 or 1.3.9 I'm not asking about seismic events, I'm talking10 Q. about this rain problem?11 Well, I'm just saying that's another infrequent12 A. and unlikely event.13 But in the event of heavy rain along the order of14 Q. a 100-year storm and rain that is proceeded by15 saturation earlier, a collapse could occur on what your16 calling a soil slope, isn't that correct?17 Correct.18 A. And shouldn't we be engineering in advance of19 Q. that, so that does not happen rather than only looking20 to see whether it has happened?21 No, no. It's not the rainfall, that's not going22 A. to happen. It's the development of the infinite slope23 seepage condition that's the unusual event.24 Which develops because of unusual rain events of25 Q. 64 an extreme nature preceded by infiltration?1 But I don't know that. That could occur on this2 A. site. When we looked at the slope we didn't see any3 evidence of that. This slope has been there for ions.4 Well, Princeton Hydro saw evidence.5 Q. No, they did not mention heavy rainfall6 A. conditions in their report.7 No, but they mentioned evidence of a higher water8 Q. table that Langan didn't see, isn't that correct?9 Right. But Langan --10 A. So they did mention it, didn't they?11 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him finish, Mr. Afran.12 Let him finish, please.13 But Langan did assume a higher water level which14 A. was, which I believe they meant to address that.15 What does that mean?16 Q. They did a stability calculations with the water17 A. level about 3-feet below the surface.18 But you don't know the methodology they used,19 Q. right?20 Sorry.21 A. You told me you didn't know what methodology they22 Q. used, isn't that correct?23 I don't understand what that means.24 A. Do you know what methodology they used to25 Q.

17 of 55 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 65 evaluate the high water table question?1 Yes, they -- it's in their report. They used a2 A. computer program, Slope W program and they imposed, they3 imposed what they felt was an arbitrarily high4 groundwater level and we asked them to provide an even5 higher one, which they addressed in the submittal last6 Friday.7 And despite that -- why did you ask them to do a8 Q. higher level?9 Because the other, the analysis they did was not10 A. the, they did infinite slope modes of failure that did11 not intercept the groundwater level.12 So they didn't do the right analysis to begin13 Q. with when you said they used the higher figure?14 And we reported that and we asked them for an15 A. additional analysis.16 So you were concerned enough about this that you17 Q. rejected their solution and told them they needed to do18 another solution, isn't that correct?19 Correct.20 A. And despite all of these concerns you still21 Q. insist on using a lower safety factor?22 Yes, because --23 A. Okay.24 Q. -- I am not certain that the situation warrants a25 A. 66 higher one.1 Well, you can never be certain in these2 Q. circumstances, can you?3 Well, no, there are all kinds of instances. For4 A. instance with dams, with seepage parallel to upstream5 slope of the dam, safety factor 1.25 is on the Army6 Corps of Engineers standard. It's the same physical7 condition that we are talking about now.8 Well, the dam is not normally placed above Gilda9 Q. Radner's house, is it? I'm sorry. It's not normally10 placed upon our neighbors houses, is it?11 No.12 A. But don't you evaluate the risk based up non13 Q. proximity of the potential harm to real human beings and14 if it has a slope above people's houses that reasonably15 could collapse in a 100-year storm event proceeded by16 more infiltration, as you described, shouldn't we be17 engineering for the higher standard?18 I believe the safety factor of 1.2 is appropriate19 A. in this case.20 May I add something?21 Of course.22 Q. This is a condition that would occur whether or23 A. not this development is ever built.24 So in other words, there's already a risk that25 Q. 67 this slope can collapse before we build?1 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. That was not his2 testimony.3 MR. AFRAN: It's exactly what he said.4 MR. PLOCKER: No, it wasn't. We could have5 it read back.6 MR. AFRAN: That

pe can collapse before we build?1 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. That was not his2 testimony.3 MR. AFRAN: It's exactly what he said.4 MR. PLOCKER: No, it wasn't. We could have5 it read back.6 MR. AFRAN: That is exactly what he said.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him answer the8 question.9 MR. AFRAN: Perhaps we could have the court10 reporter read back the answer since Mr. Plocker doesn't11 think he said that.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Why don't you ask him the13 question again.14 Why don't you repeat that statement again?15 Q. The slope -- well, what I said was, any of these16 A. conditions could occur whether or not, for the slope17 we're talking about, whether or not this development is18 ever built.19 So why are you referring to it in your evaluation20 Q. of this project if the condition is one that already21 exists anyway?22 I didn't say it -- I said, could. I don't know23 A. that it exists.24 If something could happen it's a condition and25 Q. 68 risk that exists, isn't that a fair statement?1 I think I said several times here that I am not2 A. sure this could even occur on this site. It's a worst3 case evaluation that we recommended be done.4 My question is simply, if this risk already5 Q. exists in slope of this nature before construction and6 it just doesn't matter, then why are we --7 I don't know -- I think I said ten times, I don't8 A. know that it exists.9 You just said a moment ago this could happen with10 Q. the existing slope as it stands, didn't you say that?11 No, I said whether or not the development occur's12 A. these are things that could occur.13 Yes, that's exactly what I asked you.14 Q. Yes, but --15 A. So in other words, if these things could already16 Q. occur, and it just doesn't matter about Building D, why17 talk about it in your report so much? And why are you18 questioning them for further information if it just19 doesn't matter?20 Because these are basis that you touch when21 A. you're completing a slope stability evaluation. And so22 it was the one thing that was missed by both engineers23 and we recommended that it be done just to check for24 that eventuality.25

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 69 to 72 of 144 18 of 55 sheets 69 Which doesn't matter any way?1 Q. Sorry.2 A. Which you think doesn't matter any way?3 Q. No, no. What I'm saying is, you know, that it's4 A. important to understand that this is not something that5 doesn't, you know, that doesn't already exist. The6 slope is not being actually built on.7 And yet you decided it was a factor that the8 Q. engineers had to address, is that correct?9 It was a prudent analysis to do.10 A. Now, you agree that this slope has numerous rock11 Q. outcropping, don't you?12 Not sure numerous. There's nine or ten. I think13 A. they're numbered, but there's nine or ten of them.14 Something like that.15 So you say that this is a soil slope not a rock16 Q. slope, that's your opinion?17 Correct.18 A. Now, where in Section 8-13, for example, of the19 Q. Army manual -- well, the Army manual, does it define, I20 asked this earlier, I'm not sure you answered it. Where21 in the Army manual does it give a definition of soil22 slopes. Are you aware of any?23 Precise definition, no, I am not.24 A. A definition?25 Q. 70 It's a slope with a stability where the stability1 A. is controlled by the soil properties not the rock2 properties.3 I asked you where in the Army manual there4 Q. appears a definition of a soil slope. Can you answer5 that question?6 It would be the 1902 manual is a slope stability7 A. manual. So that's, there is a description of what a8 slope is in there.9 There's also a description of a rock slope in10 Q. Section 8-13?11 Well, that's the 2908 manual.12 A. Correct.13 Q. The 2908 is rock foundations.14 A. Well, in many places you have soil thinly15 Q. covering rock, isn't that correct?16 Correct. Including here.17 A. Including here. Including say the Palisades18 Q. Ridge, you have thin soil, which is why you get dessert19 like plants such as cacti living there, correct?20 I am not aware of that, but.21 A. Okay.22 Q. But in many cases on rock outcroppings on cliffs,23 on igneous extrusions that exist we have a thin layer of24 soil over a very large and substantial base of rock,25 71 isn't that correct?1 Correct.2 A. Now -- and now in 8-13 rather than all of 2908, I3 Q. don't see any definition for rock slope that means only4 a slope with no soil. Do you see such a definition?5 Right, but it's a foundation manual.6 A. All right. It's the foundation manual dealing7 Q. with

see any definition for rock slope that means only4 a slope with no soil. Do you see such a definition?5 Right, but it's a foundation manual.6 A. All right. It's the foundation manual dealing7 Q. with rock foundations, correct?8 Correct.9 A. And rock foundation refers not only to the10 Q. foundation on which you put a building, meaning you're11 building it on rock, but also the rock structure on a12 slope that holds up the rest of it, correct?13 Right, but there are no foundations going on this14 A. slope.15 I understand that. But where in Section 2908 do16 Q. you find the definition of rock slope that means only a17 slope where there's no soil and only rock? Where do you18 find such a definition.19 I don't contend that either.20 A. So in other words, whether it's a soil slope or a21 Q. rock slope in your nomenclature depends in some vague22 way, which no one knows, on how much soil there is, is23 that what you're saying?24 An analysis was done by two consultants and did25 A. 72 not identify any slope failure mechanisms that involved1 the rock. The Princeton Hydro reduced the assumed rock2 strength criteria and they still had a safety factor of3 1.7, which --4 On one of the buildings not Building D?5 Q. No, it's not a building. It's -- these failures6 A. services, if you look at the things, the failure7 services do not go through the building.8 Where were they using a 1.7 figure?9 Q. It was in Princeton Hydro's report.10 A. But you're using 1.5, right?11 Q. Right.12 A. And you're saying Langan's using 1.5 is okay,13 Q. right?14 That's my opinion.15 A. So yet there is a difference between the higher16 Q. standard Princeton uses for this residential apartment17 complex and what Langan and Anderson used?18 It's not for the residential apartment complex.19 A. But that's what we're building, right?20 Q. Sorry.21 A. We're building one, right?22 Q. Yeah, but you're not building it on a slope.23 A. Well, we're not doing safety standards for the24 Q. squirrels that live here, we're talking about people who25

19 of 55 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 73 will live in the building and live below it, correct?1 The computer analysis did not identify a critical2 A. safety. The safety factor probably for any modes of3 failure involving the building are likely to be greater4 than 2.0.5 Than 2.0?6 Q. Yeah.7 A. So in other words, you would want to --8 Q. I don't know that for sure, I am guessing it9 A. would likely be.10 You want to use a 2.0 then because that's the11 Q. point at which everyone agrees nothings going to happen,12 right?13 No.14 A. So you want a 2.0 --15 Q. Even 2.0 something could happen.16 A. Correct. But the engineers all agree that there17 Q. is no likely safety factor above 2.0, correct?18 Sorry.19 A. The engineers agree in your statement that20 Q. there's no need to be concerned about a safety factor21 above 2.0, isn't that correct? That's what you said.22 No -- you're talking about Princeton Hydro and23 A. Langan?24 I'm just repeating what your said. You said the25 Q. 74 engineers, in plural, all agree there was no need for a1 safety factor higher than 2.0, isn't that what you just2 said?3 I don't recall saying that.4 A. Okay.5 Q. Now, if this were a major rock slope, right?6 Meaning not soil, in your understanding Section 8-13A7 says, "For major rock slopes where the consequence of8 failure is severe a minimum required calculated Factor9 of Safety is 2.0." That's what it says, right?10 Yes.11 A. Now, what is the consequence of failure? What12 Q. does that mean to you as an engineer.13 It could be all kinds of consequences. It could14 A. mean the structure is damaged, itself is damaged or --15 and/or needs to be repaired. But we're not talking16 about a structure on this slope.17 Because you're not building it on the slope?18 Q. The analysis for the slope -- excuse me, if I can19 A. explain. The analysis for the slope that Langan20 produced included the building in the analysis and the21 critical failure services did not include the building.22 There were no changes in the safety factors reported23 with the building or without the building.24 If you have continued excess fracturing below the25 Q. 75 structure of the building on top of a slope, which you1 acknowledge has in fact further excess damage to the2 slope structure, and the collapse of that rock3 structure --4 I don't understand. What structure?5 A. The rock structure I'm

f a slope, which you1 acknowledge has in fact further excess damage to the2 slope structure, and the collapse of that rock3 structure --4 I don't understand. What structure?5 A. The rock structure I'm referring to.6 Q. Yes, the loading is -- this rock structure has7 A. been subjected to maybe a thousand feet of, feet of ice8 on top of it and a glacier traveling across it.9 Which caused a lot of fractures, isn't that10 Q. correct?11 Well, yes.12 A. Okay.13 Q. But it's experienced far worse than anything that14 A. could happen, you know, in this local span of time.15 And in fact the fracturing on this site continues16 Q. over time, doesn't it?17 Not necessarily, no.18 A. The natural forces that cause the excess19 Q. fracturing you refer to in your report continue, don't20 they?21 Well, no. The fracturing is due to cooling -- 20022 A. million years ago it was due to cooling and then23 whatever tectonic forces occurred afterwards.24 You said last week that the excess fracturing is25 Q. 76 a factor of gravity working on the rock in the direction1 of the eastward slope, isn't that what you said?2 I --3 A. "Yes" or "no", didn't you say that?4 Q. No, you're interpreting whatever I said5 A. incorrectly. I didn't say it that way.6 You may not have used the exact form of words but7 Q. you agree that gravity on rock exposed in a slope face8 continues to weather and fracture, isn't that correct?9 I didn't -- I don't know that it's going to10 A. necessarily fracture again.11 You were worried about joints opening that could12 Q. get water that would cause fracturing?13 There may be existing ones that resulted from14 A. something that occurred 200 million years ago.15 Then why bother to grout them?16 Q. So that any water doesn't end up daylighting on17 A. the slope.18 In other words, if it daylights it's because it19 Q. is spreading the rock more and more?20 No, it's just filling an open void. I don't21 A. necessarily say it going to -- you're going to have to22 move the rock.23 This is at odds frankly with your report. You24 Q. don't say these things in your report. You say,25

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 77 to 80 of 144 20 of 55 sheets 77 "There's a danger of destabilization if the joints are1 open and take in water." Isn't that what say in your2 report?3 I say in the report, if it fills a joint to a4 A. water levels of elevation 590 at the top of the slope5 and that pressure shows up at elevation 490 down below,6 that's a lot of pressure that would cause the soil to7 erode.8 And the soil erosion, the rock is experiencing9 Q. during high hydrostatic pressure, the rock could also10 break apart, can't it?11 It could, but probably, I don't know at that12 A. point. You know, it's different rock down below.13 I would like to ask you something. I want to go14 Q. back and clarify something from last week. You spoke15 about the core that was taken, if you recall, and you16 couldn't identify certain information from the core.17 Now, I'm turning to Page 14 of your report and what you18 said was, that you were unable to identify the section19 of core from which the samples were taken. I would like20 you to explain what you mean by, the section of core.21 What does that refer to?22 There are photographs in the Langan report, they23 A. photographed every -- I mean, the core box samples that24 they took. And they photographed the one for the25 78 location, the location that they took the test from.1 They took the test, according to the report, from a2 section of core that was near the top but I couldn't see3 for sure whether that, what was in the photo was what4 ended up in the text.5 Now, why does it matter whether it was from the6 Q. top or further down?7 I wanted to see what -- the material came up, as8 A. was recorded by both engineers, that the material came9 up with very low strength. I wanted to take a look at10 it to see if it looked unusual and the core didn't look11 unusual.12 So what's the point of saying, "We were unable to13 Q. identify where it came from."14 Well, I couldn't see something that looked weak,15 A. is what I meant.16 Well, it doesn't say that. You say, "We were17 Q. unable to identify the section of core from which the18 samples were taken." That doesn't say you couldn't see19 anything that was weak. That says, you couldn't --20 I couldn't.21 A. Hang on. That says, you couldn't confirm what22 Q. Langan was saying, doesn't it?23 I, I couldn't. I wanted to see the core section24 A. that came out and I couldn't identify

n't --20 I couldn't.21 A. Hang on. That says, you couldn't confirm what22 Q. Langan was saying, doesn't it?23 I, I couldn't. I wanted to see the core section24 A. that came out and I couldn't identify it.25 79 And you couldn't identify it, meaning that you1 Q. couldn't confirm their findings, isn't that correct?2 No, they have a report by a reputable laboratory3 A. and I believe it.4 So you believe them --5 Q. And the rock is, the rock that they sample is a6 A. very low strength. Nobody was trying to manufacture7 something that was better than it is.8 Okay. So it was very low strength to begin with.9 Q. Why did you want to see which part of the core sample it10 came from?11 I was curious.12 A. I know. Why were you curious? Why does it13 Q. matter to you.14 Because I look at rock a lot and I just wanted to15 A. see. It didn't leap out at me but I did not intend to16 mean anything nefarious in the report or anything like17 that, you know, anything suspicious about it or anything18 like that. It was just a statement. I could not pick19 the core length and had selected the core samples. But20 I had no -- sometimes we write too much and there's no21 reason that I had particularly -- a particular concern,22 but I wrote about it.23 Well, it's a little hard to tell from your report24 Q. which parts you think don't matter and which parts do.25 80 Because every time I ask you something that sounds1 negative you say, well, that part didn't matter. You2 see the problem there?3 No.4 A. Oh, okay.5 Q. Now, you say on Page 14, I touched on this last6 week also, that a "downward dip to the east is not in7 our experience a favorable inclination." And then you8 said, "favorable inclination would be downward toward9 the west." What do you mean when you say, favorable,10 why is that relevant?11 Because the, the -- because in order to fail the12 A. rock would have to push all the rock out from behind it.13 If there's no rock in front of it to the east then it's14 more likely to move -- it's possible to move in that15 direction.16 You just said it is more likely, then you said17 Q. it's possible. Which is it, is it more likely or is it18 more possible?19 It's possible.20 A. Thank you.21 Q. Now, basically what you're saying is if my arm on22 an angle here is sloped and my arm here is sort of a23 plateau near the ridge --24 Right.25 A.