2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #r3s66s City Attomey KATE H. STACY, shre Bar #t2z3t3 AUDREY WILLIAMS PEARSON,state Bar #t78.u4 ROBERT K. STONE, state Bar #tilszz DeputyCity Attorneys City Hali I Dr. CarltonB. GoodiettPlace,Room234 SanFrancisco, Califomia94 I 02-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-4621 Facsimile: (415) 554-4757 E-Mail: audrey.pearson@sfgov.org Attomeys for Respondents City andCountyof San Francisco

COTINTYOF SAN FRANCISCO TJNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARC BRIINO, an individual and Representative of SaveNorth Beach. Ca s e No . CP F- l2 - 5 1 2 3 8 0 DECLARATION OF JOHN FUNGHI IN SUPPORT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HearingDate: HearingJudge: Time: Place: DateActionFiled: Trial Date: August9,2012 JudgeJackson I I a.m. 503 July 3l.Z0l2 ttJa'

1a IJ

l4 l5 l6 vs. CITY AND COUNTYOF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., Respondents.

18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25

AttachedDocuments:Request for JudicialNotice

I, JohnFunghi,declarethat the lbllor.vingstatements are true and accurate and are

within my personal

7 6 knowledge.If called,I would testifyas follorvs: 27
l' I am the ProgramManager fbr the San Francisco MunicipalTransportation Agency,s

(SFlvlTA)CentralSubwayPr<lject. I haveheld this positionfbr approximately sevenyears.




(CalifbmiaLicense No. 42122)andI hold a Class I am a licensedcivil engineer A

a J

(CalifbmiaLicense No. 644290). License andClassB Contractor's Engineering 3. of the lbllowine documents relevant i havereviewedor am awareof the contents to the

4 5 6

madein this Declaration: statements a. Impact Third StreetLight Rail ProjectFinal Environmental impactReport(EIS/EIR)certified in November1998; Statement/Environmental b. c. d. e. i. Final Supplemental EIS/ElR certifiedin August2008; CentraiSubr.vay in November2008; Recordof Decision(ROD) issued DesignDrarvings datedOctober PreliminaryEngineering 2008; Final DesignDrawingsdatedAugust201l; for Construction Contract Construction CS-1252 of Tunnels. includine andDrawings. cations Specifi 1. The Central SubrvayProjectis Phase2 of the Third StreetLight Rail Project, an at-

8 I


t2 l3

(Visitation Valley) to the CaltrainStation Streets 1 4 gradelight rail transit line from Third and Sunnydale

l5 l6 t7

to an at 4th and King Streets. Phase2 will extendthe light rail servicefrom 4thand King Streets (subway) portal locatedat 4thand HarrisonStreets.The light rail line .,villthen run in a underground into Chinator.vn.Threesubway trvin-borettrnnel1.6 miles north under4'hStreetand StocktonStreets

at the Moscone Convention Center, rvill be constructed. in Union Scluare. andin Chinatown. 1 8 stations

t9 20 2l 22

250 fbet pastthe ChinatownStation, but the tunnels will The rail linesin the tunnelswill terminate 2000 fbet beyondthat stationinto North Beach,terminatingbelow Columbus extendapproximately Union and Powell Streets.The tunnelswill be dug using tunnel boringmachines. Avenuebetrveen the runninggearthat extends is22 t'eet wide and 35 feetlong,excluding Eachmachine behindeach 70 tons. The tunnels 300 fbet. EachTBM weighsapproximately rvereextended IBM an additional into North Beachbecausethat is the first locationnorth of the ChinatownStationr,vhere thereis


in a shatt(commonlyret'erenced to extractthe TBMs. Thetunnelswill terminate as space 2 5 suttrcient Shaft")to be constructed in the right-of--way on ColumbusAvenuebetween Union and 2 6 the "Retrieval

2 7 Powell Streets. 28



As approved underFinal Design,the RetrievalShafl will be 46 feetin length,40feet

2 wide and r'vill extend38 feet from the surfaceof the roadwaymedianto the tunnelsbelow. The

RetrievalShaft will be excavated from the surface, and the shaft will be constructed using secant piles (which are concretervith reinforcingsteel),steelbeamsand steelplating. 6' The RetrievalShaftwill initially be usedfor the removal of the TBMs from the tunnels. its designated



and couldbe usedfor deliveryof materials to the ChinatownStation, which are

"temporary"uses.After retrievalof the TBMs, the roadwaywill be reconstructed. The only remaining

8 9 l0

indicationof the presence of the underground tunnelsand shaft will be a 39 inch access and vent coverthatwill be locatedin the medianon columbusAvenue. 7. In planning and designingthe central Subr,vay project,the SFMTA determined at least

1 1 as eariyas 2A05-2006 that the TBMs would be removedfrom the groundthrough a retrieval t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 i8 l9


that the resale or reusevalueof the TBMs at the conclusion of tunnelingactivities would not be lost or wasted, therebyreducingconstruction costs. The SFMTA also determined that it would not procure the TBMs itself' but would requirethe Contractorto do so, so that the contractor would be responsible for maintenance and repair,and delay to construction costsarising from TBM I' f-ailure or breakdown.

The characterization of the tunnel extension and the RetrievalShaftas ,,temporary',

describes the useof the tunnelsextensionand RetrievalShaft,not the meansor methods of construction.As the SEIR notes,the tunnelswould be usedto storematerials. The the RetrievalShaft provide that tunnelsextension and RetrievalShaft will final designsof

be constructed of concrete and

2 0 and steeland r'vill be permanent underground facilities. The preliminarydesignsof the tunnels 2l

RetrievalShaft* the designs that r.vere considered during the environmentalreview processfbr the

22 CentralSubwayProject- indicatedthat the tunnel extensions and RetrievalShaftwould be

constructed of concreteand steeland would be permanent underground facilities. 9' Latein the final designprocess, in approximately May z0ll,the sFMTA considered


25 usinga retrievalshaftexcavated that usedonly temporaryshoring- a shaft that is essentially a shored 26 constructionpit. The SFMTA includedthat type of shaftas an option to the tunnel construction

contract(CS-I 252). A temporarilyshoredretrievalshati would have to be backfllledr,vithsoil after

2 8 removalof the TBMs, which would extendtheconstruction durationand impacts.
F rrn o h i rl e cl ' C.r "\l^ i iI ' :on

1 2
1 J


("BIH") the tunnelcontractor, BernardImpreglioHealey,Joint VenturePartners bid the

savingscould be realizedconstructing the work and later explainedto the SFMTA that schedule methods that concreteand steelRetrieval Shaft,ratherthan employingothershoringand construction would requirebackfilling the shaft. II. (Contract contract CS-1252), the TBMs are Underthe termsof the ttrnnelconstruction

4 5 6

to purchase. the propertyof the contractor,BIH. Eachmachinecostsapproximateiy 57,400,000 The removal of the TBMs through the RetrievalShaft is intendedto maximize resaleor reusevalueof the

8 I l0 l1

costs. At the conclusion eachTBM will retain construction of tunnelconstruction, TBMs to reduce resaleor reusevalue of approximately $2,225,000.If the SFMTA altersthe currentdesignof the tunnelsso that the TBMs are not removedfrom the ground,the City wiil be requiredto compensate left in the ground,as BIH for its lost resale,reuseor scrapvalue of the TBMs or TBM components labor costs. rvell asadditionai 12. of the TBMs throughothertunnel It may be possibleto removepartsand components

1a IJ


points,suchas the ChinatownStationor the tunnel portal at 4thand HarrisonStreets.But the access to be removed in pieces: only portionsof the TBMs could be disassembled TBMs are not designed and piecesto scrapmetal resaleonly. The scrapvalue cut up, therebyreducingthe value of the salvaged value(likely lessthan $50,000 of eachTBM lvould be a very smallpercentage of resale/reuse using presentday scrapmetal values). The SFMTA would be requiredto compensate BiH for the ditl'erence



19 in valuetiom the resaleor reusevalue of the TBMs and their scrapvalue 20
13. If the TBMs are not removedtluough the RetrievalShaft,the TBMs' shieldsand

in concrete. The shieldis the steel would have to be left in groundand encapsulated 7T cutterheads that excavates the 22 exterior shell of the TBM, and the cutterheadis a l0 ton rotarycutterassembly
LJ 1A :a

tunnel - both are f.artoo largeand heavyto removeexcepttlrroughthe RetrievalShaft. 14. Althoughthe SFMTA hasconsidered options(asdescribed herein)to removing the

25 TBMs fiom the Retrieval Shaft,the cost to the Agency to implementtheseoptionsrvouldlikely
to build the RetrievalShafl. If thework utilitiesmlrstbe relocated 26 exceed$3,000,000.Underground of the Retrieval Shaflis delayed, the utilities or the constntction the City will in the near 27 to relocate


term incur significantdelaycharges liom BIH. .,\lthough theexactamountof the delaycharges are



1 z
a J

unknownat this time, I would estimate that the delaycharges would be approximately per $25,000 day. 15. The work to complete the RetrievalShafthasbeencloselyscheduled. Tunneling will Relocationof utilities will take approximately



beginfrom 4thand Harrison Streets in February z}n.

5 6

threemonths. No work may be performed from lateNovemberuntil January1,2013,because the City imposes a moratorium on constructionwork during the holidays. Constructionof the RetrievalShaft will takeapproximately ten months,which if started just in time for in January 2013 would be finished

8 9

the scheduled removalof the TBMs in early 2014. 16. Impactsof construction of the RetrievalShaftwill be minimized. The streets rvill be

1 0 kept clean:dustwill be monitoredand controlled; noisewill be kept within required decibellevels; ll
construction equipment will havenoiseattenuation devices; and the City will washmerchants'

12 windowsif required.While traffic may be impacted duringutility relocation construction, all lanes l3
'lA l+

will be reopened at the end of eachr,vorkday and no work 'rvill take placeon weekends.During construction of the RetrievalShaft,at leastone trafllc lane in eachdirection on ColumbusAvenue will

1 5 remainopen. 16

Signedunderpenaltyof perjury,this 8th day of August,2012,at SanFrancisco. Califomia.

18 l9 20

ubway ProgramManager SanFrancisco Municipal Transportation Agency


24 25 26 27 28
F unghi decl :C a s eN o . 5 I 2 -3 8 0
( I ).doc h:\tunshideclarati on

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful