February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 133 to 136 of 154 34 of 68 sheets 133 Pehnke's reports and testimony in addition to that of1 Mr. Litwornia, and CME agreed with Mr. Pehnke. In the2 October 29, 2025 memo they agreed the proposed roads for3 the development are not a cul-de-sac and we meet RSIS4 standards. CME agreed with Mr. Pehnke and disagreed5 with Mr. Litwornia on all these issues.6 Street characterization. Meeting the RSIS7 requirement for ADT, roadway width, roadway slopes, and8 the proposed configuration for the traffic signal at9 Oval and Warner.10 We also agreed to comply with all11 recommendations in CME's July 26, 2024 review letter and12 per Mr. Guarino's request, we will work in good faith to13 comply with complete streets, in addition to working14 with the townships engineers regarding the installation15 of additional handicapped ramps, which were discussed16 earlier on in these hearings.17 Okay. Geotechnical regarding Building D.18 So this is the point of the evening where it really gets19 exiting, where I conduct a four level course on20 geotechnical engineering. Just kidding. The board has21 it's own expert, Mr. Kleinberg for that. It became22 apparent that Mr. Kleinberg considered many different23 scenarios and conditions, some of which he, you know,24 threw in the report or conceded were highly unlikely or25 134 even impossible to occur. So I'm not going to delve1 into the technical detail. That testimony was more2 recent, he was here three nights, the board members were3 here, you can read the transcripts, you can read the4 reports. But for all the back and forth, and for all5 Princeton Hydro's instances that Building D should be6 held to a factor of safety standard required for the7 Hoover Dam, Mr. Kleinberg's ultimate conclusions were8 clear. Building D is not being going built on the steep9 slope. It's going to be built west of the Lenny Line,10 and Langan demonstrated that the influence of the11 structure will not extend on to the slope. The12 appropriate factor of safety for a slope not being13 developed is 1.5. And both Langan and Princeton Hydro14 calculated the factor of safety at 1.7, concluding that15 the results of both parties professionals indicate16 stability.17 Mr. Kleinberg opined that the 2.0 factor of18 safety proposed by the objector was not reasonable for19 this application.20 Mr. Kleinberg opined that the grading

s professionals indicate16 stability.17 Mr. Kleinberg opined that the 2.0 factor of18 safety proposed by the objector was not reasonable for19 this application.20 Mr. Kleinberg opined that the grading plan21 keeps water from flowing over the top of the slope. The22 actual slope to the east, as I alluded to before, he23 testified it starts to drop anywhere from 40 to 100 feet24 away from the building.25 135 He said that there is no rock fall hazard1 associated with this property.2 He advised that when excavating the3 applicant should dewater the excavation area, and if4 there's a fissure or crack, grout it. We agreed to this5 as a part of normal construction practice which happens6 all over the State of New Jersey.7 We agreed no excavation equipment would go8 east of the area of disturbance. On November 10 Mr.9 Kleinberg repeatedly confirmed that the building be10 properly designed and that the full building design and11 engineering plans were not warranted at this stage of12 design. We are subject to the building code, we need to13 demonstrate that the building and plans comply with that14 code and of course that is not a Planning Board15 function, especially where it's own geotechnical16 engineer and expert has repeatedly testified that the17 building can be designed safely in the proposed18 location.19 Mr. Kleinberg also confirmed that a blasting20 plan be done during construction and which takes place21 later in the development of this project. Absolutely22 agree to it. It is a requirement.23 He also opined that blasting can be done in24 a controlled manner in conjunction with other types of25 136 special rock splitting equipment. Neither the Langan1 nor Princeton Hydro's reports analysis indicated that2 there would be a slope failure he testified to. He also3 acknowledged he didn't know of a seepage problem through4 extreme rain events would even occur on-site. He also5 conceded that the infinite slope seepage condition is an6 unusual event and that he didn't see any evidence of7 that. He said the slope has been there for ions. It is8 a worse case evaluation that he's not sure will even9 occur on this site.10 Mr. Kleinberg refused to characterize the11 site as a non hazard zone based on the calculations and12 the appearance of the site.13 And finally when pushed by Mr. Afran, Mr.14 Kleinberg stated, "This this is not an extremely heavy15 building." When

as a non hazard zone based on the calculations and12 the appearance of the site.13 And finally when pushed by Mr. Afran, Mr.14 Kleinberg stated, "This this is not an extremely heavy15 building." When pushed further he confirmed that in New16 Jersey, "We are building buildings on the ridge lines.17 Mr. Kleinberg even testified that if someone had asked18 him to design Building D in that location he would19 design it. He noted that building on ridge lines is not20 an exception in New Jersey.21 Mr. Kleinberg's ultimate conclusions were22 crystal clear. The building not being on the steep23 slope, it's proposed in the location permitted by the24 ordinance and may be built safely in that location.25