February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

5 of 68 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 17 took it well and I appreciate that. But nevertheless it1 was very serious and even though I may have shaken his2 hand afterwards and wished him well going home, it3 doesn't change the primary seriousness of the issues.4 Your primary duty as a board is to determine whether or5 not the public health and safety, or welfare in certain6 instances, is protected by this project. Ultimately7 after all the ordinances are done, after all the8 variances that may be sought are done, after all the9 expert testimony, your primary task has to be, is the10 public health and safety protected. Health, safety and11 welfare. Welfare comes more in the aesthetic questions.12 But health and safety certainly are related to the13 engineering problems. So you have to ask yourself, are14 you satisfied that the evidence shows that the public15 health and safety, with respect to Building D, because16 that's really all we were talking about on that issue,17 is protected. Is the public health and safety protected18 by this plan based on the evidence you saw.19 Now, I repeatedly asked Mr. Kleinberg questions20 about things that were in his report. And when you go21 through the transcripts you'll see those. And every22 time I got to a place in his report where I said, Well,23 you said this here and you indicate you don't have24 enough information, or this is a problem or potential25 18 problem, and almost without exception every time I asked1 about those provisions in his report, Mr. Kleinberg's2 answer was, Well, I didn't really have to write that.3 I'm not sure that's really necessary to have said.4 Maybe we didn't need that in there. And he did this5 several times. And this was the whole reason he was6 there. Was to give an independent appraisal of the two7 expert views from the applicant and the objector and8 give a report and his criticisms of significance. And9 then when I asked him about them, each time he said,10 Well, maybe I didn't need to say that. I don't know why11 I said it. Well, it was said by an engineer, a licensed12 engineer, many years of experience, hired to give an13 independent evaluation, he puts it in his report. And14 you have to say to yourselves, Why did he back off. Why15 did he continuously backpedal. Whenever I asked him16 about these aspects of his opinion, he backs off. Says,17 nah, they weren't

eport. And14 you have to say to yourselves, Why did he back off. Why15 did he continuously backpedal. Whenever I asked him16 about these aspects of his opinion, he backs off. Says,17 nah, they weren't really necessary to say. Not18 important enough. I don't know why he kept doing that.19 I do know that he may have had a little bit of a20 Stockholm syndrome impact, in which the victims sort of21 identifies with the torturer, because he kept22 communicating with the applicants engineers over and23 over and over. Never communicated with me. Didn't even24 communicate with Ms. McGovern in an open way telling her25 19 he's not telling me these things. We had that dialogue.1 E-mail after e-mail is sent to Langan. Never copied me2 or my engineer, even though his task was to3 independently evaluate the two sets of experts. He goes4 on a field trip on the site, doesn't bother telling me5 or my engineer that they're doing it. So he's sitting6 there walking around the site, as much as one can there,7 and he's in constant contact with the applicants8 engineers doing a "independent" evaluation. This was9 not an independent evaluation, and it didn't happen just10 once. The inspection happened once, the e-mail contact,11 the phone meetings happened over and over and over, and12 he didn't even own up to it in his report. I had to13 pull it out of him through cross-examination and that's14 why he had to keep coming back, because he had to keep15 supplying what was not produced.16 Now, I have no doubt that he understands17 engineering, and at certain points he answered questions18 succinctly and clearly, but whenever I got to the crux19 of the question of his own opinion to criticize the20 geostructural engineering, he backpedals and goes back21 the other way, and then we learn he's in constant22 contact with the applicants engineers, never my23 engineer. Never me. Was it truly an independent24 report, I don't think so. Not as you understood it25 20 would have. I'm sure none of you assumed the engineer1 for CME, the independent engineer, would be having2 constant contact ex parte with the applicant without the3 objector ever knowing. His job was to evaluate my4 report versus Mr. Plocker's clients report, and he5 didn't do that. He did a one sided analysis with input6 only from the applicant. On no occasion did he even ask7 my engineer, What do you think about

eport versus Mr. Plocker's clients report, and he5 didn't do that. He did a one sided analysis with input6 only from the applicant. On no occasion did he even ask7 my engineer, What do you think about Langan's8 supplementation. That was not an independent report,9 you should not rely on. You have to ask yourselves,10 after all of that testimony, are you satisfied that the11 public health and safety is protected with respect to12 Building D. If you can't honestly say, I feel assured,13 then you must vote this plan down. That's your14 fundamental responsibility.15 There other aspects to Building D that are16 troubling. I'm sorry. The fire chief -- I'm sorry, I17 have to find it. The fire chief issued a report that's18 been filed in this case dated August 1, 2024, shortly19 after we began. It's from Fire Chief Anthony Vecchio,20 and he noted the questions raised by certain parties,21 and perhaps some of it came through my22 cross-examination, I don't know if he had seen that yet.23 Certainly there are comments made in various quarters,24 this is very early in the case, remember. And he made25