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

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