FROM: Michael W. Parker
197 gth Street #515
Charlestown, MA 02129
June 16, 2004

TO: James Gribaudo
Senior Project Manager

Boston Redevlopment Authority
One City Hall Plaza, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02201
Re: The Residences at Pier 5: Expanded ENF/Proiect Notification Form

Dear Mr. Gribaudo:
I am deeply concerned with the recent Expanded Environmental Notification Form
/Project Notification Form (“report”) submitted by LDA Acquisition, LLC (“developer”)
regarding the disingenuously named “The Residences at Pier 5” in the Charlestown Navy
Yard. Disingenuous in the sense that residences are but a portion of this project, a 160-
seat restaurant and lodging units are also planned. This project was hastily conceived and
designed to beat the impending development deadline of the BRA Land Disposition
Agreement with the developer. The entire report is seriously deficient and lacking in
thoughtful and meaningful analysis of the proposed project’s impacts. Allow me to
outline a few of those deficiencies below.

Extension to Comment Period Should Be Granted
As a threshold matter, the developer has foisted the project upon the community with
little or no advance notice. As you know, it is difficult for community groups to match
the resources and expertise of the developer when attempting to create a dialogue leading
to meaningful project analysis. For instance, the developer skillfully argued that a
Municipal Harbor Plan (“MHP”) for the Navy Yard is invalid in an action to evade
paying the BRA certain fees on one hand, and is now, not so skillfully, asserting that a
valid MHP for the Navy Yard exists for the purposes of the this project.

It is obvious that this project was hastily conceived by the complete lack of thoughtful
and meaningful data contained in the report. The paucity of real data in the report denies
decisionmakers relevant information about the project’s adverse impacts and reasonable
alternatives before making decisions impacting one of the Commonwealth’s most
precious, and too often ravaged, natural resources, our public tidelands. Any decision
allowing this project to proceed prior to the developer’s provision of the comprehensive
analysis required by law and regulation would be a violation of the Article 80 and MEPA
review processes. The report, instead of providing meaningful analysis, is riddled with
conclusions without basis in fact.

To attempt to provide analysis on such an abbreviated time frame shortchanges the
public, especially when the potentially illegal development of Commonwealth Tidelands
(Chapter 91 regulations may be violated) is proposed. Accordingly, I request that you
extend the comment period for at least 30 days to allow for the type of review and
comment that a project of this nature needs. I also attach an e-mail from the BRA’s Mr.
Gribaudo explaining that the BRA will accept comments until at least June 25, 2004. Mr.
Gribaudo amended this deadline to June 30, 2004 in the June 15, 2004 Charlestown
Neighborhood Council Development Committee meeting.

Traffic Assessment Seriously Deficient

1. Traffic
   A startling example of the developer’s disregard for the review process is his conclusions
   in Section 5 regarding transportation. It is obvious that the developer did not commission
   a comprehensive traffic study, instead relying on models not applicable to the Navy Yard
   area. Section 5 is a skimpy recitation of unsupported statem~nts that dramatically
   underestimate local traffic impacts. For instance, the restaurant and lodging units will
   obviously create a large increase in taxi and private vehicle trips in an already congested
   and unsafe area. Local residents have long endured the excessive speeds and dangerous
   driving techniques of taxis and drivers unfamiliar with 8th Street’s narrow design and
   significant child population.
   
   The developer indicates that “Traffic from regional roadways, including the Central
   Artery and Rutherford Avenue will use either Sixth Street or Eighth Street for access to
   and from the site”. This indicates woeful ignorance of the roads in the immediate vicinity
   of Pier 5, or an attempt to obfuscate a plan to cause a major disruption to the Yard’s
   “Shipyard Park” which lies between Sixth Street (a.k.a. Terry Ring Way) and Eighth
   Street. In fact, at the June 15, 2004 meeting with the public and the Charlestown
   Neighborhood Council’s development Committee, the New York-based developer’s
   representative had to ask the public where Terry Ring Way was.
   
   Sixth Street runs from First A venue to a cui-de-sac on the southern edge of Shipyard
   Park. To create access the site from Sixth Street, the developer would have to cut a road
   from the cul-de-sac at the head of Sixth street, skirt the southern wing of Flagship Wharf,
   and cut across the Harborwalk to connect with the Pier 5 site. This wholesale disruption
   is totally unacceptable and will end up causing a multitude of traffic problems in the
   immediate area.
   
   The developer’s traffic review is severely deficient, as evidenced by a review of the
   “Guidelines for EIR/EIS Traffic Impact Assessment”, approved by the Executive Office
   of Transportation and Construction and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
   
   The deficiency of the developer’s traffic assessment is so severe, that instead of
   attempting list all the gaps in assessment, I refer you to the Guidelines for review.
   
2. Parking
   The developer indicates with regard t~ parking that ”The proposed Project also includes
   the construction of an approximately l 06 space underground parking structure Parcel •
   2A3″ … “the at-grade land above the parking garage will be landscaped and preserved as
   waterfront open space”. The Parking Garage Plan is illustrated at Figure 2-9.
   
   This part of report is seriously deficient: the discussion is misleading and the severe
   disruption approach involved in going underground is unacceptable, for the following
   reasons:
   • A priori, the BRA must rule on this kind of use on Parcel 2A3, and there is no
     evidence of the BRA’s stance in this matter in the report; a deficiency.
   • The structured parking, as illustrated in the report, consists of 25 spaces
     valet/managed, and 81 standard spaces; the “standard’_’ spaces are blocked when
     the valet spaces are occupied; it is doubtful that residents of the luxury units
     proposed for Pier 5 would accept the delays involved in accessing their cars, and
     would instead attempt to park on the streets.
   • The underground parking facility would require on Parcel 2A3 an access path, a
     down/up ramp, and a gatehouse for control; none of this is c\·idenced in the
     report, which simply characterizes this space as .. open space .. to meet open space
     requirements.
   • The access path, down/up ramp and gatehouse wou!J t~1ki: up a substantial part of
     Parcel 2A3’s 1.1 acre surface, and thus diminish anJ n.:~tnct significantly the
     parcel’s green space which is now entirely available fllr the: puhlic.

Tidelands
Section 3’s discussion of Tidelands jurisdiction and applicahlc rq_!ulatory requirements is
a prime example of the type of cursory, self-serving analysis appan:nt throughout the
entire report. First of all, it is unclear whether the Municipal • 1arhor Plan (MHP) that the
developer references as relaxing Chapter 91 requirements is still in force and valid.
Apparently, MHPs need to be reauthorized every 5 years. The last val id MHP for the
Navy Yard was approved in 1991 and has not been renewed.

In fact, according to a Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision (111r e: Competrol
Acquisition Partnership, L.P., et al Case Nos. 94-622 through 94-626, August 2, 2000), it
appears that the developer fashioned an argument denying that he owed the BRA a
significant development milestone payment because the BRA was unable to cause the
renewal of the MHP relative to a part of the Navy Yard.

It is unclear as to whether the MHP in question would be applicable to the location in the
Navy Yard of the proposed project, but it is worth noting that the issues (i.e., the requisite
-renewal of MHPs in general) surrounding the MHP in question in the Bankruptcy Court
surround any MHP for the part of the Navy Yard where this project is proposed.

Even if the MHP in question in the Bankruptcy Court was specific to a small portion of
the Navy Yard, it appears that the MHP relative to the rest of the Navy Yard has not been
reauthorized since 1991 and is therefore inapplicable to this project. A review of
correspondence between EOEA and the BRA (dated: May 20, 1997; June 30, 1997;
February 18, 1998; and November 26, 2001) indicates that there is no valid MHP relative
to the Navy Yard in place.

Apparently, the developer is also arguing in the alternative that other projects have gone forward in recent years pursuant to the MHP. Obviously, that does not cure the non-renewal of the MHP, it only calls into question the legality of
those projects.

Apparently, it is the Commonwealth’s position that Navy Yard developments are subject
to the more stringent Chapter 91 requirements (Parcel 4 was subject to Chapter 91
permitting). Representatives of the DEP and CZM have indicated they believe that Navy
Yard development is subject to Chapter 91 requirements, unmodified by a MHP.

In hasty and conclusory fashion, the developer makes no effort to explain why he
believes there is a valid MHP. Clearly, the developer has not addressed how different the
project would be if subject to Chapter 91 requirements, which should be part of an
alternatives analysis. In fact, it appears that the substantial commercial/residential
components of the project would constitute a private tenancy on Commonwealth
Tidelands and thus not be allowed. This is an important issue that warrants much further
discussion. Otherwise, much site preparation and destruction to the environment could
occur only to find out that Chapter 91 disallows the project.

Environmental
There are important envirorunental issues ignored and/o:-glossed over by the developer
which require robust analysis. Anything less puts the public health and natural resources
at risk in an area of critical concern. It is critical to understand that all of the developer’s
assertions regarding the environmental aspects of the project are conclusory and sadly
deficient. There are serious air and water quality issues not addressed by the developer,
as well as wind, noise, and groundwater issues.

In fact, all Section 4 issues need much more analysis in the developer’s next submittal (which should be a draft report, not a final report). I will illustrate a few pertinent examples below with the caveat that the
general tenor of the remarks apply to all the other Section 4 issues.

Environmental Legacy
As you are aware, the Navy Yard was the locus for the construction and repair of
thousands of ships during a period when environmental concerns and regulations were
unheard of. Pier 5 itself ~erviced over 2000 ships during the World War II era. Not
surprisingly, one would expect to find significant toxic industrial waste such as
chlorinated solvents, PCBs, P AHs, soil, cleaning and degreasing solvents, and other types
of toxics used to service ships. The developer has admitted that he has not conducted
testing of the soils and/or sediments on or under Pier 5. Presumably, no testing has been
done in order to avoid triggering DEP reporting requirements.

The deveioper·has admitted, albeit vaguely, that there will significant amount of piling
restoration and the driving of new pilings to provide the load bearing support a
development of this size will need. The resultant unearthing and disturbance of sediment
in the Pier 5 Commonwealth Tideland area is sure to cause and/or exacerbate
environmental conditions, requiring extensive remediation.

In fact, the developer is having this just this problem at his other Navy Yard project at Parcel 4, (DEP Release
Tracking Number 3-22380), where oil and hazardous material contamination was
reported to DEP last December. Remediation of sediments in such a ecologically critical
area as Pier 5 would certainly cause delay of the project for years, jeopardizing the public
health of surrounding residents and their children.

In addition, such disturbance could very well reverse years of environmental remediation
and restoration work performed in Boston Harbor. 1n other words, substantial tax monies
used to originally clean up the Harbor will be wasted in order to provide a New Yorkbased
developer a development opportunity. To safeguard against this wholly
unacceptable consequence, the developer should be required to perform a comprehensive
environmental study of the site area and submit appropriate remediation plans as part of
the developer’s draft submittal to the BRA and the MEP A office. Anything less
jeopardizes the public health and environment.

Wildlife Habitat
Even though a search of the Massachusetts National Heritage Program Atlas did not turn
up identification of the site as high priority regarding endangered species, it is wrong for
the developer to assert that the project” will not adversely impact wildlife habitats.”
Inevitably, wildlife habitats will be adversely impacted.

The developer doesn’t even mention what species of wildlife may present at the site.

Presumably, there are wildlife species making a comeback due to the Harbor cleanup.
Those species are important to the area’s biological health and water quality.

A comprehensive survey needs to be done regarding the existing wildlife, the adverse
impacts, and alternatives and mitigation to the adverse impacts during the construction
and sediment disturbance. Shadows over the water sheet ( a result of the overhanging
walkway) and their adverse impact also need to be a part of the developer’s draft
submittal to the BRA and the MEPA office.

Alternatives/Mitigation
The purpose of the draft and final reports is to provide meaningful opportunities for
public review and to identify potential environmental impacts and to avoid and/or
mitigate damage to the environment. The developer has offered no alternatives or
meaningful mitigation regarding the project. The public has a right to know the
differences between the environmental impacts caused by the proposed project and say, a
Maritime Park (one of the plans discussed for Pier 4 in certain forums), or other public
benefit uses required by Chapter 91.

The construction mitigation measures proposed during construction are entirely
insufficient. The area is one where wind gusts typically reach 30 miles an hour and
higher. Any sort of excavated contaminated sediment will result in unhealthy human
exposure via air pathways. Therefore, state of the art construction mitigation procedures
are required to protect the health of nearby residents and thei~ children.

Financial Viability of the Project
Given the issues regarding the potential remediation of Pier 5 and the ongoing
remediation of Parcel 4 (RTN 3-22380), there is doubt regarding the financial viability of
both the project and the developer. If the project become financially insolvent due to
escalating remediation costs, the project could languish and be an eyesore for years.
Review of this project needs to include a financial review of the economics of the project.
There should also be a bonding requirement, or similar financial mechanism, to insure
that if the project becomes insolvent, then at least the remediation is completed and the
site returned to a safe condition.

Conclusion
Because of the complexity of this project and its location in a sensitive ecological area,
the comment period should be extended. This extension is needed to insure adequate and
meaningful dialogue between the developer and the community. The developer should
not be allowed to push this project through without robust analysis. The proposed
construction of such an ill-conceived project on one of the Commonwealth’s most
precious, and too often ravaged, natural resources, our public tidelands, requires as much.

It is ironic that after enduring more than a decade of Big Dig construction bettering the
skyline and adding the Zakim/Bunker Hill Bridge, this project denies the public those
beautiful views.

There are many other locations of the Navy Yard in less environmentally sensitive areas available for responsible development.
The developer should include those locations in his alternatives analysis. Also, the developer should not
be allowed to circumvent the public participation process by letting his next submittal be
a final report instead of a draft report.

Of critical importance are the Chapter 91 issues. They need to be resolved before any
more time or resources are spent on this project. Even if an MHP is determined valid
(though that would take an illogical and tortured analysis of the issue), the Navy Yard is a
much different place than it was in 1991. It is more congested <!nd developed. For
instance, it is apparent that 8th Street can not accommodate the additional traffic caused
by this project. Pier 5 is a natural location to reflect the realities of the present-day Navy
Yard. Pier 5 should preserve for the public benefit the abundant recreational benefits Pier
5 offers. Accordingly, Chapter 91 requirements should be followed to the letter no matter
what the status of the MHP.

Equally important is the environmental legacy of the Navy Yard. It can not be ignored or
glossed over by the developer. The scant environm~nta! information provided needs to be
subject to a much more comprehensive analysis in order for the community and
regulators to make informed decisions regarding this project. The environmental cleanup
reports filed for Parcel 4 should be made available so that community members may be
informed as to what conditions are present at Parcel 4 in order to determine what
conditions may be found at Pier 5.

I found it disappointing that the developer’s representative at the June 15th meeting
answered many important questions regarding the impacts of the project by asserting that
this is an “as of right” project, relying on decades-old planning documents. In essence,
the developer’s representative was stonewalling members of the community. There is no
.. as of right” private use for Commonwealth Tidelands. Also, it is clear that the impacts
of projects of this size and scope are legally required to be studied carefully.

The community’s right to know of the adverse impacts transcends the developer’s
stonewalling tactics. The more known about the proposed project, the better.

In concluding, I quote a passage from a letter, dated May 20, 1997, authored by Thomas
N. O’Brien (past Director of the BRA), and sent to EOEA’s Secretary, Trudy Coxe,
asking for an extension of time amending an MHP;

“As you know, planning and technical issues along the harbor are numerous and the preparation of policies and
planning recommendations require time for thoughtful analysis and community input.”

Please follow the BRA’s own words on harbor development and act accordingly.
Thank you for the your careful consideration of these comments.
Please add me to your mailing list for future announcements about this matter.

cc: Leandra Dames, EOEA
Ben Lynch, DEP
Tom Skinner, CZM
Paul Scapicchio: Boston City Council
Honorable Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston
Merita A. Hopkins, Esq., City of Boston
Bryan Glasscock, City of Boston
Maeve Vallely Bartlett, Esq. EOTC
Timothy Famulare, City of Boston Conservation Commission
Joseph Fleming, City of Boston Fire Department
Richard Mertens, BRA
Richard McGuiness, BRA
Mark Maloney, BRA