December 3, 2025 Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

?25 39 Sorry.1 A. Let me repeat that. Would you agree that the2 Q. slopes we are dealing with here are steep slopes as3 defined by the townships steep slope ordinance, unless4 you don't know?5 I don't know what the ordinance says exactly.6 A. The hazards report called them a moderately type of7 slope, but I'm not sure what the slope ordinance defines8 as steep slope. They're not particularly steep for the9 rock slopes.10 Well, have you read the towns steep slope11 Q. ordinance?12 No, I haven't.13 A. MR. PLOCKER: Which does not apply to the14 application.15 MR. AFRAN: Well, yes, you are taking the16 position that it was set aside.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Whatever the position is.18 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Kleinberg is not a lawyer.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Continue talking to him,20 please.21 MR. AFRAN: Okay.22 I just need one moment.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.24 I'm sorry.25 Q. 40 Well, Page 11 you speak of slope mapping under1 Hazard Mapping and there you say, "The slope angle on2 the upper slope, as determined by the spacing of3 contours created by aerial survey, is steeper than4 indicated by the contours and ranges from 17 to 295 degrees, which may require a re-evaluation of the Hazus6 Class by the Agency publishing the map." Doesn't that7 mean that other evaluations show a much steeper slope8 than the hazards map shows?9 Right. But the stability analyses that were10 A. performed address that.11 I am just asking a question. You just said --12 Q. Also a 29 degree slope is not a steep slope.13 A. Yes, but 15 percent is what qualifies as steep14 Q. slopes on most municipal rules, isn't it?15 Most highway embankments are 29 degree slopes.16 A. But most municipalities use 15 percent --17 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He's not talking -- he is18 testifying to something in the report. Now you're19 talking about something where most folks are.20 MR. AFRAN: We are not building a highway,21 correct?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct.23 We're not building highway, Mr. Kleinberg?24 Q. No.25 A.

11 of 17 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 41 That's all. We're not building a highway.1 Q. Now, it also says on Page 11, "We were not able2 to obtain additional background information on the basis3 of the classification in time for this review." What4 does that mean?5 The map, referring to the landslide mapping for6 A. Essex County, New Jersey prepared for the New Jersey7 Geological Survey, it's referenced in the Langan report,8 and the report show -- identify a Class 3, I think,9 level of concern. And that's all included in the Langan10 report. And so the, it just, the map just states that,11 but they're not describing why they made that12 classification or what the mechanism of a landslide13 would be in that particular area. You can not find the14 basis for their findings.15 And what does Class 3 refer to?16 Q. It's a Hazus classification, it's a government17 A. agency that investigates certain types of hazards,18 including landslides.19 I mean, what does Class 3 mean?20 Q. It's moderate or -- it's a moderate risk.21 A. Moderate risk of what?22 Q. Landslide.23 A. So Building D is going to be placed just above a24 Q. slope with a moderate risk of a landslide, is that fair25 42 to say?1 Well, there was an investigation done that2 A. indicated that the stability, when it's completed, we3 have a couple others that we asked for that done a more4 thorough investigation, that was done for people who5 made the classification, and so far it hasn't indicated6 instability exists on the slope.7 Yes, but Class 3 was indicated by the agency?8 Q. Right. But they don't do the -- did not do test9 A. borings and stability analyses and that sort of thing,10 as far as we know.11 Then why do you mention as a relevant factor that12 Q. you couldn't get information on the basis of the13 classification if it doesn't matter? Why even bother14 mentioning it.15 Because it needs -- they need it to provide an16 A. explanation in my opinion, otherwise it's misleading.17 Usually the maps have a text on them and this has no18 legend or text or anything on the map.19 Thank you.20 Q. In the last sentence of that paragraph you say,21 "The analyses performed by both Langan and Princeton22 Hydro do not, in our opinion, indicate instability under23 the assumed conditions." What do you mean by, assumed24 conditions, or what are they?25 43 Well, they're the conditions that are

Princeton22 Hydro do not, in our opinion, indicate instability under23 the assumed conditions." What do you mean by, assumed24 conditions, or what are they?25 43 Well, they're the conditions that are shown on1 A. the cross sections and in the project files that are2 done based on the exploration.3 So you're referring to data that was provided by4 Q. Langan?5 Right.6 A. Thank you.7 Q. At Page 12 you say that, "The overburden soils8 were reported to have been classified visually. There9 were no index testing results, such as moisture content10 and grain size tests, included in the report. Two11 unconfirmed compression tests were performed of the12 Basalt bedrock." Now, when you say, the overburden13 soils report to have been classified visually, who did14 that report of the visual classification?15 Langan.16 A. Langan.17 Q. And you said, there's no testing result such18 moisture content and grain size tests. What does that19 refer to?20 That refers to, you take a sive and you, a series21 A. of sive's and you shake the sand through the sive and22 you break it down into different sizes of grains.23 And what's the relevance of finding that24 Q. information out?25 44 It, it provides additional criteria to come up1 A. with soil strength parameters, permeability, a whole2 bunch of engineering properties.3 Are those important?4 Q. Right. There were investigations done by Shore5 A. Engineering for the applicant as well and they did do6 the index testing.7 Thank you.8 Q. At Page 13 you refer to the fact that Princeton9 Hydro reviewed inferred stratigraphy and that Langan did10 a general stratigraphy. Can you explain what those two11 terms mean? Inferred and general stratigraphy.12 That may be a poor choice of words, but inferred13 A. means you do borings 100 feet apart and then you, and14 then basically the practice is to interpolate them15 between the two points that, you know, where the strata16 are and you have to infer that the conditions between17 follow that general trend. They don't necessarily do18 that, but you won't know until you excavate.19 And what about what does general stratigraphy20 Q. mean? You used both terms.21 I know, maybe I should have used inferred twice.22 A. General could be inferred.23 Well, what did you mean by general, because you24 Q. used two different words?25

01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM Page 45 to 48 of 68 12 of 17 sheets 45 I was not that careful at that point, but they1 A. both mean roughly the same thing. They're synonymous.2 You mentioned on Page 14 that "Langan reported a3 Q. joint set dipping downward to the east on a slope of 174 degrees." Then you go onto say, "downward dip to the5 east is not, in our experience, a favorable inclination,6 which would be downward towards the west." What do you7 mean by this?8 What I mean is that they reported, I am just9 A. reading their report and they said it was 17 -- it was10 dipping 17 degrees in the easterly direction, which is11 down slope.12 No, I understand you're reciting what's in their13 Q. report.14 What did you mean by your conclusion that the15 eastern inclination is not a favorable one. The16 favorable one would be downward toward the west?17 If the joints dip in the direction of the slope18 A. then there's -- it reduces, it reduces the safety factor19 against sliding, but those assume the 45 degree angle,20 which is twice the 35 degree friction angle, which means21 that the rock joint won't slide if it was only sloping22 17 degrees.23 What's their basis for that assumption of the 3524 Q. degree friction angle?25 46 It's a fairly representative value and based, and1 A. they had people go over the rock Basalt that they saw.2 Well, if it is fine the way they did it, why did3 Q. you comment that, "A downward dip to the east is not a4 favorable inclination, which would be downward towards5 the west?"6 I believe in their report it was referenced as a7 A. favorable one and we didn't agree with that.8 That's because gravity will tend to cause rock to9 Q. move in a direction where there's less support and in10 this case that would the east, is that fair to say?11 Correct.12 A. Thank you.13 Q. You also make a the statement that Langan in14 their rebuttal -- strike that.15 You make the statement that when you're read16 Langan's rebuttal CME was not able to identify the17 section of core which samples were taken. This is,18 again, at Page 14. Can you explain that statement?19 We were looking -- at that time they took two20 A. core samples and they were close together, they were21 taken from the same rock core and we could not identify22 the piece that was used in the -- there's photographs23 and nobody drew a circle on the photograph and said,24 this is the piece we took

ere21 taken from the same rock core and we could not identify22 the piece that was used in the -- there's photographs23 and nobody drew a circle on the photograph and said,24 this is the piece we took the samples from.25 47 So what does it mean that you couldn't identify1 Q. that?2 We couldn't.3 A. No, I mean what's the significance that caused4 Q. you to make this reference in the report?5 Well, it would have been interesting to know6 A. which piece of rock core they selected from the7 photograph.8 And why would it be interesting to know that,9 Q. that's my question?10 It would be, it would have been good to see the11 A. rock before it was subjected to the test. They do have12 pictures of the rock core in their thing before it was,13 before it was subjected to a compression test.14 And why would it have been a good to see that15 Q. first?16 It would not particularly be important that we17 A. could see it, but we couldn't see it and I --18 So you make a point of, a point of knowing but,19 Q. it's not particularly important, is that what you're20 saying?21 I did that, yes.22 A. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Move own. Move on.23 MR. AFRAN: I am not sure why you're saying24 move on, I think that's a very important point.25 48 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Not in his opinion. He is1 the expert.2 MR. AFRAN: You are the expert who judges3 ultimately and you need to hear the full level of4 details or lack thereof.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He said in his opinion it6 wasn't important. Thank you.7 Mr. Klein.8 MR. KLEIN: So how many core samples do have9 the circle in the photograph to tell them which pieces?10 THE WITNESS: They only took samples from11 one core.12 MR. KLEIN: So there's only one core and13 they just identified --14 THE WITNESS: They didn't locate the -- I15 couldn't see on the photo which piece was the one that16 they removed from the core box and trimmed it. You have17 to trim them and everything and I couldn't see that on18 the photo.19 MR. KLEIN: Could they identify it now or is20 it to late now?21 THE WITNESS: I am sure somebody from Langan22 could probably identify it. I don't think it's that23 significant.24 MR. KLEIN: When you looked at the whole25

13 of 17 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 49 core, did you see like a section you wished they had1 studied instead of?2 THE WITNESS: No, they have a photograph.3 MR. KLEIN: Of the whole core and whether4 they took this piece up here or went down six more5 inches and took that piece, it's pretty similar?6 THE WITNESS: Right.7 MR. KLEIN: All right.8 See Mr. Kleinberg, the problem is, me as a9 Q. lawyer, I assume what's put in a report is what is10 important or you wouldn't put it in the report. So I11 keep asking you questions about statements you made and12 then you keep saying, they're not important. I am13 trying to understand why you care about whether you14 could see this piece of rock?15 It would have been good to see which piece they16 A. took from it. It would, but it's, in the big picture of17 things, it's not that significant. But I did put it in18 the report.19 I am still trying to understand what would be the20 Q. value to seeing it. That's what I'm asking you. You21 couldn't see it, you don't know where it is, may have22 been devoid, what is the value at this point?23 When you look -- because there are a number of24 A. joints and fractures on the existing core and it would25 50 have been good to, it would, if I were -- when I was1 looking for the piece I would have wanted to see the2 piece that they took, they selected for the samples.3 How deep was that core?4 Q. That I think was at the top surface of the rock5 A. and it was, and I think the core is generally 5-feet and6 then they would stop and take the core sample out, put7 the barrel down and run another 5-feet.8 Thank you.9 Q. You also make a statement that you, referring to10 different compressive strength measures on Page 14.11 This is in the -- are you all right?12 Sorry.13 A. Thank you.14 Q. This is in the paragraph headed, Basalt Bedrock.15 Now you say, after addressing two compressive measures16 you say, "The results are a small fraction of the17 anticipated strength range for Basalt and roughly18 equivalent to that of a low to medium strength19 concrete."20 Correct.21 A. Now, what are you trying to say there?22 Q. Sorry.23 A. You're making a comparison, you're saying the24 Q. results of these compression tests are a small fraction25 51 of the anticipated strength range for Basalt. Now,1 let's deal with that first, what does that mean?2 That means that the, that means

24 Q. results of these compression tests are a small fraction25 51 of the anticipated strength range for Basalt. Now,1 let's deal with that first, what does that mean?2 That means that the, that means that the strength3 A. of the Basalt is typically, typically about 30,000 PSI4 and these were about 3,000 PSI. And each of the5 engineers involved observed the same point. Princeton6 Hydro went over it and Langan also went over it.7 And so you're saying that this particular Basalt8 Q. is not as strong as one normally would expect from9 Basalt, is that correct?10 The sample was not as strong, but we don't know11 A. what the rest of the rock is, if that's typical of the12 rest of the rock.13 But the part tested showed that it's much, much14 Q. weaker than Basalt normally is. Isn't that fair to say?15 Correct.16 A. Okay.17 Q. Now, then you said, and these results were18 "roughly equivalent to that of a low to medium strength19 concrete."20 Correct.21 A. Because concrete is not, doesn't have the22 Q. cohesion of Basalt or other forms of rock and so you're23 saying this Basalt is actually more akin to the24 strength, weight bearing strength to cement, is that25 52 what you're saying?1 I'm sorry, you said I didn't -- you said more2 A. than --3 I will rephrase it.4 Q. Yeah.5 A. You're saying here that this Basalt actually in6 Q. terms of its weight bearing strength is equivalent only7 to a low to medium strength concrete?8 Correct.9 A. Okay. Thank you.10 Q. What do you mean when you say Langan "attributed11 the unusually low strength to porosity, and crystalline12 grain size characteristics in the rock." I won't say13 the rest of the sentence. What does that mean,14 attributed this low strength, this unusually low15 strength to porosity and crystalline grain16 characteristics of the rock?17 That's what they said, and I was just quoting.18 A. Do you have any knowledge of that fact one way or19 Q. the other?20 No.21 A. Okay. Thank you.22 Q. So basically this rock is much weaker than rock23 normally would be in this class and it actual is24 equivalent in strength to a relatively low grade cement,25

01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM Page 53 to 56 of 68 14 of 17 sheets 53 is that fair to say?1 Concrete.2 A. Concrete.3 Q. Yes, that's what I am saying. That particular4 A. piece of core, I don't know about the rest of it.5 Right. And we don't have any other measures,6 Q. right?7 Right.8 A. So the one that we have shows that this rock base9 Q. is no better than a low to moderate concrete, is that10 fair so say?11 That's fair to say.12 A. Thank you.13 Q. Would you agree that this ridge formation in our14 area is a product of glacial action at some point?15 Sorry.16 A. Would you agree that this ridge formation is a17 Q. product of glacial action at some point?18 It's a product of, it was, it was a product19 A. before the glacier arrived.20 Igneous intrusion was much earlier, millions of21 Q. years earlier?22 Hundreds of millions.23 A. Hundreds of millions.24 Q. Years ago earlier glaciers though, tens of25 54 thousands of years ago, carved out ridges and left1 ridges, is that fair to say?2 There was a tremendous force of ice on top of the3 A. rock.4 Right. And so these ridges collapsed either5 Q. because -- well, ice or because the force of ice moving,6 is that fair to say?7 They didn't necessarily collapse. I don't know8 A. that they collapsed.9 Well, the ridge didn't exist naturally, like that10 Q. part was cut away from by glacial impact leaving the11 ridge, is that correct?12 I think the ridge is the end of the, of the13 A. volcanic flow, I am not sure. I am not a geologist.14 I don't want you to answer if you can't.15 Q. I can't. I am not, it's my impression that16 A. that's the end of the flow of the lava.17 You don't know really as a base of expertise?18 Q. No.19 A. Okay. Then I will not trouble you with these20 Q. questions.21 Now, we spoke last time and you said that in your22 view the 1.5 safety factor in the Army Corps Manual was23 appropriate for this project and that the 2.0 factor24 would normally be for projects like dams and things like25 55 that?1 Correct.2 A. And you said however, if the building were built3 Q. on a slope you would apply the 2.0 factor?4 Yes, that's what, that's what I would do. Not5 A. because it is required, but that's what I would do.6 As a matter of engineering practice that's what7 Q. you would do if it was built on a slope?8 Yeah, but the buildings aren't being built on a9 A. slope.10 But if a building was built on a slope it11

6 As a matter of engineering practice that's what7 Q. you would do if it was built on a slope?8 Yeah, but the buildings aren't being built on a9 A. slope.10 But if a building was built on a slope it11 Q. wouldn't be resting on the soils, it would be excavated12 into the bedrock that forms the ridge, right?13 I don't know. Depends on the design.14 A. MR. KLEIN: But it's not built on the slope.15 MR. AFRAN: The point I am raising, you16 don't want to build on topsoil. The question is, he17 would've given it a 2.0 safety factor if it was built on18 the slope, which means it is anchored into the bedrock,19 it is the same bedrock structure being anchored to on20 top.21 MR. PLOCKER: Bruce, you have an engineering22 degree? You're testifying as an engineer.23 MR. AFRAN: I am proposing a problem to a24 witness.25 56 So if in fact you build on the slope would it be1 Q. anchored into the same bedrock structure as that would2 be anchored when it is on top?3 Why would you give it a 2.0 only when it's4 anchored on a slope and not on top?5 We are not talking about stability of the6 A. structure. We are talking about the stability of the7 slope.8 I know. So why would you use a 2.0 safety factor9 Q. if anchored in bedrock on the slope but if not anchored10 in the same bedrock on soil?11 Because the forces would be much higher on it if12 A. it was on the slope than they would be if it was --13 where they're going to put it.14 Now, if the rock under this Building D were15 Q. fractured and not properly grouted and if there are16 other friable or destabilizing elements under that rock17 the entire structure collapses and with it part of the18 slope, isn't that fair to say?19 No, it is not fair to say.20 A. Well, the structure collapses on the rock under21 Q. the structure it would go down part on the slope,22 wouldn't it, it would have to?23 This is not an extremely heavy building and it's,24 A. and the condition of the rock and there are buildings25

15 of 17 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 57 allover the Palisades that are built in situations like1 this.2 Well, those are older buildings, that's not3 Q. modern practice?4 We have a 30-foot high retaining wall on the5 A. Palisades that I designed.6 But did you design that?7 Q. Before COVID.8 A. But we're not formally putting ridge line9 Q. numbers --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Don't tell him what he11 normally does, ask him.12 MR. AFRAN: It's an engineering question.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're not normally doing14 anything. You can ask him not normally doing but --15 MR. AFRAN: It's a question. I said, we're16 are not normally building buildings on top of a ridge17 line, are we, in modern practice? It was a question.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.19 MR. AFRAN: You may not like it.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If he can answer.21 We're not normally doing this typically in the22 Q. ridge line, are we?23 Sorry. Of course we are.24 A. As a regular practice in New Jersey? So is this25 Q. 58 an exception?1 If it's doable. If somebody asked me to do it, I2 A. would design it.3 Look, engineering and enough money many things4 Q. are doable. I simply asked the question, we're no5 longer doing this as a regular building practice in New6 Jersey, are we?7 Nobody told me that.8 A. You're an engineer for many years, I am simply9 Q. asking the question based on a normal engineer in this10 state, can you answer?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He answered.12 I did answer. Yes, we are building buildings on13 A. the ridge lines.14 I didn't ask whether we are. I asked normally is15 Q. it currently typical practice?16 I don't know normally or not normally.17 A. I don't know. Thank you.18 Q. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Kleinberg reacting that way,19 I'm simply asking an engineer what is typical practice20 today in modern engineering in our state. I think it's21 a perfectly reasonable question.22 MR. KLEIN: You now have anchors of land on23 ridge lines and then what percentage of that, of all the24 land and percentage of buildings are on ridges?25 59 MR. AFRAN: That may be your way of1 analyzing, I'm simply asking whether to his knowledge as2 an engineer building on ridge lines are typically3 constructed in modern practice in New Jersey.4 MR. KLEIN: And he answered.5 MR. AFRAN: I am not sure what the answer6 was. What he said is no one told me.7 MR. KLEIN: Yes, still do.8 THE WITNESS: Yes, we'll do it. If we