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

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