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

21 of 55 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 81 What you're saying is where my arm is gravity1 Q. works on the rock in this downward direction to the2 east?3 Correct.4 A. Because there's nothing here on the eastern side5 Q. holding back the rock, correct?6 There is. There's friction.7 A. Correct. But gravities working against friction8 Q. and pulling it?9 Yeah, but there's -- but Langan assumed a10 A. representative friction angle on the joints of 3511 degrees, which is two times 17 degrees, which would12 provide enough resistance to keep the block from13 sliding.14 And if you didn't have enough resistance the15 Q. block would slide, correct?16 Correct.17 A. Thank you.18 Q. So we're building this apartment on a structure19 that if this calculation is wrong means this building20 and rock could slide, correct?21 Right.22 A. Thank you.23 Q. Well, sorry. Can I strike that?24 A. No, you can't strike an admission. Only we can25 Q. 82 strike, Mr. Plocker and I and Ms. McGovern, but you can1 not strike. Thank you very much.2 Now --3 MR. PLOCKER: Would he like to explain what4 he was going to say. We're all about a fair and full5 record, Bruce. So I think he should be allowed to say6 what he was going to say.7 You believe the building could slide or the rock8 Q. could slide if the friction elements and analysis here9 are wrong?10 No.11 A. You just said they could?12 Q. I said the rock could slide, I didn't say the13 A. building could slide.14 I see. So the rock under the building could15 Q. slide but the building somehow is going to stay16 straight, is that what you're testifying to?17 No, there is not enough force to move it. The18 A. building is, it's ten to 40 feet beyond the ridge line19 and the ridge line is another 20 or 30 feet of rock20 before the slope ends.21 So why are you referencing this concern in your22 Q. report, again, if you say now it doesn't matter?23 I reference it as a, as a factor that was24 A. observed. It was observed in the Langan report and it25 83 was, I don't remember if Princeton Hydro addressed it.1 Well, you said it wasn't favorable, that means2 Q. there's a problem potentially?3 The direction is not favorable, but they implied4 A. that there is, there is adequate frictional resistance5 to keep it from moving.6 They implied it?7 Q. They said.8 A. One moment they're implying, one moment they're9 Q. saying. What is it,

implied4 A. that there is, there is adequate frictional resistance5 to keep it from moving.6 They implied it?7 Q. They said.8 A. One moment they're implying, one moment they're9 Q. saying. What is it, definitively or is it an inference10 that's just wrong, which is the case?11 They reported in their technical engineering12 A. report that a friction angle of 35 degrees can be13 assigned to the rock joints.14 Do they explain why and what the basis of that15 Q. was?16 No, they did not go into a detailed explanation17 A. of it.18 So you can't really evaluate it because they19 Q. didn't give you enough to do that, can you?20 That was their judgement and they spent time21 A. looking at it and there was, there's, there are criteria22 related to the roughness of the joints and what kind of23 soil filling, if any, there is in the joints and24 whatever they looked at they based on the fact that25 84 they're experienced engineers, they said that 35 degrees1 can be assumed for the rock.2 And based on their assumptions, without any3 Q. documentation or support that you can see as an4 independent evaluator, you're satisfied that must be5 right and this friction inclination is so sufficient6 that there's no danger of rock slide, is that your7 testimony?8 Is that my testimony?9 A. Yeah. Is that what you're saying.10 Q. My testimony is that they said it was 35 degrees11 A. and you have to ask them.12 I'm asking you as the independent evaluator.13 Q. It is in my experience a representative value of14 A. friction coefficient for rock on rock joints.15 I couldn't hear you, I'm sorry. Go ahead, sorry.16 Q. Couldn't hear you.17 It's a representative friction coefficient for18 A. rock on rock joints.19 What do you mean, it's representative? Is there20 Q. some manual that says rock wall has a 35 degree angle?21 There are manuals that you use as references that22 A. based on a description, that's what engineers do all the23 time.24 No, I'm not asking if there are manuals that say25 Q.

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 85 to 88 of 144 22 of 55 sheets 85 a 35 percent inclination is safe. I'm asking, how do1 you know that calculation is correct?2 It's based -- it's consistent with references3 A. that talk about rock on rock joints.4 Well, that depends on the nature of the rock5 Q. formation in a given instance. The nature of cracks,6 the nature of fractures and the structure that it7 comprises in order to determine inclination, doesn't it?8 Sorry, inclination is actually measured. We're9 A. talking about friction coefficient.10 Friction coefficient, sorry.11 Q. One is easy to determine the other is not.12 A. Now, you don't have any data about -- you just13 Q. said you have no independent information about one14 aspect of this, namely the friction coefficient, isn't15 that correct?16 Correct, but it's consistent with published data.17 A. Did you see any data that they referred to or18 Q. relied on in reaching this coefficient?19 It was their recommendation as professional20 A. engineers.21 And my -- other than their recommendation, which22 Q. is obviously potentially self interested since they23 represent a client seeking to introduce this project,24 did you see any information to validate that25 86 recommendation?1 Only based on my familiarity with design manuals2 A. that that's a representative friction angle for rock on3 rock contact.4 But there are instances when there are other5 Q. coefficients that will arise, aren't there?6 There are instances, yes. It was -- but they7 A. looked at the drawings and they said we are applying a8 representative value of 35 degrees and that's within the9 handbook values that are referenced.10 They looked at the joints from the surface,11 Q. correct?12 They looked at -- yes. They didn't bore into the13 A. -- well, they did bore into the rock, but.14 Let me ask you, other than their recommendation,15 Q. do you have any information on which you can16 independently evaluate their conclusion of this17 coefficient?18 It's consistent with design manual19 A. recommendations in design. That's the way we work.20 But you have no information as to their21 Q. measurements, their data, their -- any photographs or22 anything else in which they relied to reach this23 conclusion, do you?24 Do I know where -- what, they did not cite a25 A. 87 reference.1 And they did not cite any data, photographs,2 Q. measurements or anything

se in which they relied to reach this23 conclusion, do you?24 Do I know where -- what, they did not cite a25 A. 87 reference.1 And they did not cite any data, photographs,2 Q. measurements or anything else from their inspection, did3 they?4 Only that they said that they had excavated5 A. alongside the outcrops, they did test pits, which they6 logged, and they described what they saw in the logs and7 this was their opinion as experienced engineers. I8 believe Mr. Seel is a geologist.9 Don't you think that if there was a dispute about10 Q. the structural integrity of the site to the point where11 the board wanted it's so called independent evaluation,12 there should be independent tests?13 Our main scope --14 A. I didn't ask you whether you should have done it,15 Q. I'm just asking --16 Well, it sounded like you were asking me.17 A. No, I didn't.18 Q. That's why I answered that.19 A. I didn't ask you whether you should have done it.20 Q. I know you what your scope was, you said that. I'm21 asking you as an engineer retained to do an independent22 evaluation, don't you feel where you have two sets of23 engineers who differ on major issues concerning the24 safety of this project on this ridge, that independent25 88 evaluation and testing should have been done to decide1 on these issues, such as the coefficient?2 No, I don't think the outcrops are significant3 A. enough to justify that.4 You're not a geologist, are you?5 Q. No. Geotechnical engineer.6 A. Do you have any photographs of the outcrops?7 Q. They're included in the Langan reports.8 A. I don't see any analysis in your report about the9 Q. outcrops, I don't see that here?10 Well, we mentioned what the joints, we mentioned11 A. that it was, we looked at it and we looked at their12 description and it seemed consistent.13 Consistent with?14 Q. Well, we looked at, you know, the pieces that15 A. were exposed and it looked consistent with what they16 were describing.17 And are you saying that those conditions will be18 Q. consistent throughout this rock structure?19 Of course. As we already discussed, I can't see20 A. what's buried.21 And so other than the tests they have done, you22 Q. have no knowledge as to the remainder of the structure23 in terms of safety, do you?24 The engineers made assessments that are in the25 A.

23 of 55 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 89 standards. There's this geologic strength argument and1 it goes on in the rebuttal reports between Langan and2 Princeton Hydro. They -- and Princeton Hydro3 established a very conservative value of GSI of 20.4 They ran stability calculations which came up with a5 safety factor of 1.7 which --6 Is above 1.5?7 Q. And then it says -- I'm sorry.8 A. That's above 1.5, correct?9 Q. Correct.10 A. So their calculation is 1.7?11 Q. Right.12 A. Which is more than the 1.5 you're accepting from13 Q. Langan, but you don't see anything wrong with Princeton14 Hydro's calculations either, did you?15 No.16 A. Okay.17 Q. The question --18 A. You have a dispute between two engineers?19 Q. Can I answer or no?20 A. What.21 Q. The other question between -- the analysis22 A. between the two engineers is one sets the bar higher23 than the another.24 And you see nothing wrong with the analysis25 Q. 90 Princeton Hydro did, did you?1 No. Nothing.2 A. Okay.3 Q. So you don't think when you have two sets of4 engineers and you could find nothing wrong with either5 analysis, you're to err on the conservative side?6 And when you do, you get a safety factor of 1.7.7 A. That's -- whose conservative analysis is that?8 Q. Princeton Hydro.9 A. Right. And that's above 1.5?10 Q. That's better than 1.5.11 A. The safety factor of 2.0 is what they12 Q. recommended?13 Well, they do, but I don't agree with that.14 A. But you said there is nothing erroneous about the15 Q. calculation of 1.7, isn't that correct?16 I said that.17 A. So therefore if you have two engineers who have18 Q. two sets of reports and you can find nothing wrong with19 either one of them, and yet you're accepting the lower20 safety value rather than the higher, is that your21 testimony?22 My testimony is that 1.5 is an acceptable slope23 A. stability factor for, for a slope that's not being24 developed.25 91 Can you find anything wrong with Princeton1 Q. Hydro's analysis?2 Nothing wrong with it.3 A. Thank you.4 Q. Other than I have a different opinion on the5 A. required safety factor.6 Correct. But other than that you have nothing --7 Q. you see nothing wrong with their analysis that led to8 1.7?9 Right.10 A. Okay. Thank you.11 Q. MR. AFRAN: Just need a moment. Would this12 be a good time to take a break?13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll take a ten-minute14 break.15 (Whereupon,

lysis that led to8 1.7?9 Right.10 A. Okay. Thank you.11 Q. MR. AFRAN: Just need a moment. Would this12 be a good time to take a break?13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll take a ten-minute14 break.15 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Back on the record.17 Mr. Afran.18 I'm sorry for the delay, we had some other issues19 Q. as well as the, Mr. Plocker and I, review.20 That concludes for now our cross-examination of21 Mr. Kleinberg, subject to his supplying the materials we22 discussed and I would appreciate if some time in the23 next week, if possible, that could be done. We still24 have a few weeks before the next likely meeting and that25 92 will give us time to review it as we discussed outside1 with Mr. Plocker, Ms. McGovern and the Chair. We will2 review those materials and see if we have a need for3 further cross-examination or if Princeton Hydro needs to4 come back based on those materials. So at this point5 we'll stop our examination of Mr. Kleinberg for now6 subject to what we just discussed.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir. Okay.8 So I ask any members of the board if they have9 any questions for Mr. Kleinberg?10 MAYOR McCARTNEY: No, sir.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer?12 MS. KAPFERER: No questions.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino?14 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: No questions, sir.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes?16 MR. WILKES: No questions.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper?18 MR. ALPER: No questions.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza?20 MR. CARDOZA: No questions.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa?22 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: No questions.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Malvica?24 MS. APTE: No questions.25

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 93 to 96 of 144 24 of 55 sheets 93 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Rizzo?1 MR. RIZZO: No questions.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any of the members of3 the public have any questions of Mr. Kleinberg on his4 testimony? Please come up and get identified. Any5 questions from members of the public? Questions for Mr.6 Kleinberg. Come up and --7 THE PUBLIC: Gilda Paul, Howell Drive.8 So thank you for your testimony and I9 apologize because I wasn't here for all of your10 testimony last week, but I left assured by your11 testimony and now I'm am totally confused. I left12 reassured by your testimony last week and now I am13 totally confused. My sense of your testimony last week14 was that there was zero chance of a landslide, a15 mudslide or flooding with the building, is that correct?16 THE WITNESS: Zero chance? We don't usually17 deal in zero chances.18 THE PUBLIC: So what would you put the19 chances at, what percentage would you put it at?20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, where did you say21 you live again?22 THE PUBLIC: Howell Drive.23 THE WITNESS: Howell Drive. That's Lot 1324 and 15?25 94 THE PUBLIC: I'm actually 61. I'm right1 across from the building. What percentage would you2 give to the chance of some, you know, of some kind of3 mudslide, landslide, flooding, what number would you4 give?5 THE WITNESS: That's a really tough question.6 THE PUBLIC: What range would you give? Can7 you give me a range. If it's not zero, is it between8 zero and ten, between zero and 20? I mean, what --9 THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer that10 question. It's what -- all I can say is that the11 calculations that were done indicate that it's not a12 likely event.13 THE PUBLIC: What does, not likely mean? Is14 that 49 percent, is that, I mean because I left with the15 impression it was zero. So, you know, I am just trying16 to understand what it would be.17 THE WITNESS: No, I, I am not trying to18 evade the question. I can't put a number on it like19 that. What it shows is that for the slope as it stands,20 whether up to whatever you do until now, it's computed21 to be stable and so it would be -- I, I can't answer,22 really put an answer to that question.23 THE PUBLIC: Can I ask you one more24 question.25 95 THE WITNESS: Sure.1 THE PUBLIC: So the fact that, I don't know,2 6,000 trees or something would be removed, does that3 affect the calculations at all?4 THE WITNESS:

I ask you one more24 question.25 95 THE WITNESS: Sure.1 THE PUBLIC: So the fact that, I don't know,2 6,000 trees or something would be removed, does that3 affect the calculations at all?4 THE WITNESS: No, because, and the reason I5 say that is because the slope we're talking about is6 going to be maintained wooded, as far as I understand.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So -- all right. So the8 fact that the ground above won't be wooded and be9 absorbing water, will still not affect that, is that10 correct?11 THE WITNESS: I don't -- in my opinion, it12 won't affect it.13 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.15 Go right head, sir.16 THE PUBLIC: Hello. Bill Slazak. I offer a17 procedural question. I don't know if I can ask, first I18 have a statement that's about five minutes.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Not tonight.20 THE PUBLIC: This is just questions, there21 would be another opportunity?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes, sir.23 THE PUBLIC: Bill Slazak, Marie Terrace. I24 am a retired engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers.25 96 I retired in 2013 and worked for a private engineering1 firm for ten years after that. So I have done a2 detailed analysis of the data that I saw and I'm not3 sure whether I've seen it all but what, you know, so I4 looked at the data that was provided on November 24, I5 believe, and then I also saw a map that was submitted on6 December 1, but I didn't seeing else. So I have a7 number of questions. One of them pertains to the Factor8 of Safety. My, you know, I understand that we're9 talking about a Corps of Engineering standard of 1.5 as10 being, you know, it's really a baseline, a minimum11 standard, and it's, and I'm going go preface it by12 saying, I'm not a geotechnical engineer, but I am an13 engineer, you know, familiar with the principal and14 practices. And so what I was able to find in the15 literature is that, that an experienced geotechnical16 engineer would really do a risk face analysis looking at17 more than just, you know, whether it's 1.5 or not. And,18 you know, very quickly, you know, given the fact that19 the factor of safety was exactly 1.5 on two of the four20 transects that we looked at, you know, I would think the21 board would be a little bit reticent to approve a22 project based on data that appears right now.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, ask the question of24 the expert, please.25

25 of 55 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 97 THE PUBLIC: Sorry.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ask the question of the2 expert, please.3 THE PUBLIC: Okay.4 So the information, you know, I thought your5 report was very good, I thought it was comprehensive.6 What I was wondering was, you had, one of the7 recommendations you had asked for the, you know, for the8 analysis under heavy rainfall conditions, but you also9 asked about mounding and suggested mitigated measures10 for the impoundment basin, did you receive that?11 THE WITNESS: What I was recommending is12 that the design engineer review mounding under a heavy13 rain.14 THE PUBLIC: Right.15 THE WITNESS: The mounding analysis, I don't16 do that. I have never done one.17 THE PUBLIC: Right.18 THE WITNESS: So I am not that familiar with19 what goes into it. But it predicts the extent of water20 under a certain rainfall event.21 THE PUBLIC: Right.22 THE WITNESS: And recommended that the23 design engineer for the system evaluate that to24 determine if it could, if the extent of the mounding25 98 could go back over the slope and introduce water onto1 the slope.2 THE PUBLIC: Right. But that hasn't been3 done yet?4 THE WITNESS: It hasn't been done. The5 response from Langan were basically that they -- it's6 their opinion that the water level that they have7 assumed for their, for their high groundwater assumption8 is higher than the mounding would occur and so there is9 no possibility for the water to go over to exceed that.10 But what I said, I think in the last -- that they should11 submit their analysis. I mean their evaluation formally12 to the board and so that was our last recommendation to13 them.14 THE PUBLIC: Just one final question, if I15 could ask him.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure. Go ahead, sir.17 THE PUBLIC: Based on the literature that I18 reviewed, not only are trees important on the slope19 itself, but also adjacent, you know, on the, even the20 flat part because the roots are so interconnected, so is21 that something that you think should be considered? And22 also climate changes. So those are a number of factors23 that I think might suggest that a, you know, a factor of24 safety a 1.51 might be appropriate as opposed to 1.5.25 99 So just a couple of thoughts for the board to consider.1 Thank you very much.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir.3 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. My4 question

ppropriate as opposed to 1.5.25 99 So just a couple of thoughts for the board to consider.1 Thank you very much.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir.3 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. My4 question is, are there any like recommendations or5 requirements or some sort of like maybe catchment area6 just in case there is a debris slide or just debris7 being piled up as the they're digging out the rocks and8 lands or if the rocks do loosen, is there any9 recommendation to somehow create a buffer between some10 of the homes that are? There are quite a few homes that11 are below this project and as has happened before, you12 know, gravity takes stuff down, even if it appears to be13 far away it will still hit these homes or, you know,14 damage these homes. So my question is, is there15 anything, a buffer zone, required or recommended to16 catch any debris?17 THE WITNESS: I think Mr. Afran referred to18 that the last meeting. Right now it's not a rockfall19 situation. It wouldn't, it wouldn't occur that way. I20 don't think it will occur.21 THE PUBLIC: Even just rockfall, like a pile22 of mud or dirt that's been removed from the ground, they23 go home for the night, a rainstorm comes, this has24 happened. That, you've referred to it actually, an25 100 event that happened once before on this mountain. This1 happened in 1998. Debris from the building of The2 Grand, you know, they left, the storm came, the debris3 fell and damaged the homes. So I'm asking as an4 engineer is there any requirement to protect the homes?5 It's a lot of homes as the mountain slopes down, to6 protect these homes from any debris, not rock. Any7 debris fall?8 THE WITNESS: The lower -- you live, I'm9 sorry, I'm not familiar with, you are in the, on the10 streets just below the --11 THE PUBLIC: That's right below, yeah.12 THE WITNESS: Right below.13 THE PUBLIC: But so are many other homes --14 THE WITNESS: Right.15 THE PUBLIC: -- as the mountain continues.16 THE WITNESS: The slope flattens out, so --17 to something in the neighborhood of ten degrees in that18 area.19 THE PUBLIC: I think you're referring lower20 down to where there's a sewer line.21 THE WITNESS: Below.22 THE PUBLIC: I'm where, like you'd be23 walking and you could like touch the soil with your24 mouth as you're walking up it's so steep.25