COMMENTS ON THE RFPs FOR PIER 5 – CHARLESTOWN NAVY YARD

Responsibility of the BPDA regarding Pier 5

The purpose of M.G.L. Chapter 91 is to protect the public interest in the waterways of

the Commonwealth. It ensures that the public rights to fish, fowl and navigate are not

unreasonably restricted and that unsafe or hazardous structures are repaired or removed.

When I first moved to the Navy Yard in 1993, Pier 5 was walkable and Navy Yard

residents used it everyday as did people who fished from it, both from inside and outside the

community. Then one day, well over a decade ago, the Pier was declared condemned and an

ugly chain link fence was erected. Overnight, Pier 5 became an eyesore.

Over the course of the 28 years that I have resided in the Navy Yard, there has not been

any attempt by the BRA/BPDA to engage in even the most minimal of repairs. Doesn’t the

BPDA have any obligation to repair this unusable pier? Why has that never been advanced

as an option? The BPDA collects millions of dollars in transfer fees, development rights and

leases from the Navy Yard yet, to the detriment of the community, sees fit, for years, to sit on a

condemned site that they consider unsafe with a cheap unsightly chain link fence that mars the

beauty of the location. This lack of maintenance and years of inattention can be seen in this

photo. Pier 5 does not need to continue to be an eyesore. It can be enhanced and

revitalized in a creative way that benefits all the residents and visitors to the area.

Page 1 of 10

• Risks from Demolition of Pier 5 — Contamination and Environmental Implications

The project site is in an area that had been an industrial shipbuilding and repair

facility for many years. Pier 5 was originally built in 1911 and was rebuilt in 1941. The Pier

was used consistently in the fabrication of military vessels and repair up until the

decommissioning of the Navy Yard. To my knowledge there has been no testing or studies

done to ascertain the types of hazardous materials that were used in constructing the Pier or in

its subsequent usage that may still reside in the area surrounding Pier 5. What environmental

issues will arise when the seabed under the Pier is disturbed?

The picture below from 1960 shows a highly active, working Navy Yard. Who knows

what hazardous materials will be unearthed as the Pier is demolished? For that reason, an

extensive Environmental Impact Study should be conducted before there are any attempts to

disturb the current Pier.

“Contamination of sediments in Boston Harbor, particularly by metals, is so widespread that its

effects may be felt long after the sources of contamination are shut off. Where are toxic

concentrations of metals located today? How did they get there? How will they move? These

are questions that must be answered in detail before we can properly estimate risk in the

environment.” – Dr. Frank Manheim, U.S. Geological Survey

Page 2 of 10

• Impact from the Demolition and Rebuilding of Pier 5 on Surrounding Structures

Demolishing and then rebuilding the Pier is a massive undertaking. The size of the

project, as one proponent said “includes the demolition of 1,700 concrete pilings and two

acres of deteriorated slab”. If the Pier is demolished, how can you be sure the structural

integrity of the surrounding structures including Pier 6, Constellation Wharf, the

HarborWalk, Flagship Wharf and Pier 4 won’t be negatively disturbed? At Flagship Wharf,

there is an underground garage five levels deep that is supported by a slurry wall; the very

same garage that all these proposals plan on using. This underwater wall is roughly fifteen feet

away from the Pier. The vents from the garage sit even closer to the boardwalk and the Pier.

Any foundational movement could lead to a major problem.

Only one of the proponents indicated that they do not plan on using explosives to

remove the Pier. What method are they considering? What about the other proponents? How

will they demolish the Pier? Instead of explosives, how will the Pier be demolished? How can

remnants from the existing unsafe Pier be used as an “anchor” for one of the proposed

developments?

Regardless of whether explosives will be used or not, construction of a new Pier will

most likely include the use pile drivers. The amount of force necessary to place new pilings

over the course of reconstruction will be significant and pose a potential risk of its own.

Also, construction machinery and trucks will need to cut through the Eastern corner of

the Flagship Wharf lot, above the garage since there is not a straight line leading from the end

of 8th Street to the Pier. How sensitive is the slurry wall to the impacts of heavy trucks and

machinery crossing directly above it?

Further, Flagship Wharf recently engaged in repairs to its building facade and indicated

that it was necessary to use scaffolding for the project because the Boardwalk was not strong

enough to support bucket trucks or aerial work platforms. This necessitated the project taking

longer and being more expensive. If this type of repair was not feasible because of weight

bearing issues, how will heavy trucks and construction vehicles be able to cross the

boardwalk?

We have no information to predict the impact on surrounding structures. Can it be

guaranteed that there will be no impact to the structural integrity of surrounding buildings, the

underground garage/slurry wall, the HarborWalk and adjoining Piers? What steps will be taken

to ensure that nearby buildings and structures are not damaged during demolition and

rebuilding?

None of the proponents addressed these issues. Further, none of the proponents

commented on the limitations and conditions on new pile-supported structures over flowed

tidelands.

• Unresolved Legal Issues

A formal legal opinion should be sought to determine the types of developments

permissible on Pier 5 under current zoning laws, Chapter 91 requirements, the Municipal

Harbor Plan, the Coastal Development Overlay, etc. Many of these regulations overlap in time

and jurisdiction, with possible conflicting provisions. In fact, a legal opinion should have been

sought before any Request for Proposals were solicited.

Page 3 of 10

The waterfront activation plan spoke to residential use of Pier 5 and was being

considered based on the old Boston Harbor Plan despite its inconsistency with Chapter 91

restrictions on residential uses above tidal wetlands. Hasn’t the Master Plan expired? If so,

Chapter 91 prohibitions should prevail.

• Chapter 91 Requirements Regarding Open Space

It appears that none of the three proposals meet the Open Space requirements of

Chapter 91 which state that generally 50% of the project site, including sidewalks must be

Open Space. Two of the proposals skirt this requirement by defining their proposed residential

communities as “marinas”. A third is counting a roof with plantings that is not readily

accessible as an asset to the community. Architectural drawings are nice but what will this

public amenity look like in the middle of winter? Further, there are “higher standards” on

Commonwealth Tidelands. Are the higher standards being met? Are the setbacks as

proposed in keeping with the guidelines? At the very least, a determination should be made to

clarify how these proposals should be defined under Chapter 91 and that they live up to the

letter of the law regarding Chapter 91 requirements.

• Other Chapter 91 Requirements

“Requirement 7(d) seeks to ensure that facilities of private tenancy over flowed tidelands are

subject to specific guidelines to avoid conflict and minimize incompatibility with the operation of

nearby water-dependent and/or public activities. “ Based on the comments made by some of the presenters at the RFP meeting on

February 8th, there will be conflicts and incompatibility with the operations of the Courageous

Sailing Center, a non-profit sailing school for the youth of Boston in operation since 1987. Two

of the proposals, Navy Blue and 6M will clearly infringe on Courageous operations. This

would appear to be in violation of Chapter 91 7(d).

Further, as a result of the encroachment on Courageous, there is the potential for

disruption to the operation of the Charlestown Ferry, again a conflict per 7(d), and a potential

adverse effect for Navy Yard residents and the people who work here. The Charlestown Ferry

was already moved once and then moved back again to Pier 4 at tremendous cost to the City.

Is that mistake going to repeat itself again?

It is clear that there needs to be clarification on the types of developments permissible

under current zoning laws, Chapter 91 requirements, Municipal Harbor Plan, Coastal

Development Overlay and the legality of calling a residential development a marina. These

proposals clearly threaten Courageous Sailing Center’s ability to operate.

• Failure to Address the City of Boston’s Climate Resilience Policies

The average citizen is at a complete disadvantage in understanding the three proposals

put forward because of myriad laws, rules, regulations and requirements at the Federal, State

and Local level that govern this type of development over public tidelands and waterways.

Page 4 of 10

In an email exchange with a BPDA representative the following was stated: “Any

development at Pier 5 is subject to the HarborPark Municipal Harbor Plan. A State approved

harbor plan would supersede the provisions of the overlay. However, any new development

would also need to address the City’s climate resilience policies.”

I may not know all the ins and outs of the various regulations, but I do believe that none

of the three projects put forth anything innovative nor reflective of the city’s emphasis on

climate resilience; nor do any of the proposals acknowledge the risks that rising tides pose to

the Navy Yard and its inhabitants.

• Failure to Address or Acknowledge the History and Significance of this Historic Site

The Charlestown Navy Yard built, repaired, modernized, and resupplied ships for 174

years. From here ships and the sailors serving aboard set off to places around the globe. The

ships that left this yard represented the United States on every continent and defended the

nation through both times of war and peace. The generations of workers at this yard took pride

in the significance of what they contributed and the work that they completed. For many sailors,

this was the last place they might touch American soil for months, years, or perhaps never

again. (From NPS.gov)

The Navy Yard, once a shipbuilding powerhouse, has a storied history that is being

totally ignored. How many Naval ships were built here or came through the Navy Yard for

repairs during the course of WW II? The Charlestown Navy Yard is home to the USS

Constitution and the USS Cassin Young and welcomes over 350,000 visitors each year from all

over the world. Boston’s National Parks hosted over 3.2 million visitors in 2019, triple the

number from 1975. None of the proposed projects provide anything additive to the

reasons that so many tourists and school groups visit Boston and the Navy Yard every

year. The 6M and Navy Blue projects, specifically, offer limited public access.

• Failure to capitalize and maximize the last remaining open space on the Boston Harbor

There must be better alternatives than those that were presented. Look at Piers Park in

East Boston, various converted Piers in New York City, Brooklyn and the city of Philadelphia,

among many. This last remaining open pier in the Boston Harbor should warrant more

thoughtfulness and consideration as to how to capitalize on its location and potential. To that

end, having a grocery store in this location, with minimal setbacks, is incredibly short sighted

especially since there are other open parcels of land in the Navy Yard that do not present the

traffic, congestion, delivery vehicles and trash issues that this location presents.

Is there potential for the Pier to be used against potential flooding and storm water

management? It is likely that a 3-4 foot wall/barrier will need to be built along the HarborWalk

and water line in order to protect against rising ocean levels. How can a floating residential

community be placed and accessed in front of such an expected wall?

There must be better and more creative options to be explored for this unique and

historic piece of property.

Page 5 of 10

• Use of Dry Dock 2 as a Construction Staging Area

One of the proponents, 6M, indicated they intend to perform construction and prefabrication

work on Dry Dock 2. I believe that is not permitted per the deed for Dry Dock 2.

Also, on the west side of Pier 4 adjacent to the ferry terminal and the end of Flagship

Avenue Way next to Dry Dock 2 is a culvert currently under repair. Over the years a number of

sinkholes have emerged in this area. I am not sure if this area would have the stability to stage

construction, nor have heavy equipment parked on or transversing it, even after the culvert is

repaired.

With regard to all the proposals, even Navy Blue which indicates they will perform

fabrication off-site, where exactly will on-site construction take place?

• Major concerns regarding traffic, congestion, parking, noise, trash collection

I acknowledge it is early on in the process and I may be expecting too much by way of

details at this point, but there are significant quality of life concerns for Navy Yard residents that

were not adequately explored or addressed in any of the three proposals. And if they were,

they were minimized to the point of almost being insulting.

Where will the water, pipes, plumbing, sanitation equipment, electrical wires,

transformers and all infrastructure necessities for the proposals be placed, especially if it a

project is called a marina, including floating housing, and not a residential development? What

are the differentiations/implications if the project selected is classified as a “marina” or as a

residency?

Traffic and Congestion: One of the least controversial and apolitical aspects of the

proposed development of Pier 5 are the impacts regarding traffic and congestion. These have

some clear safety implications regarding emergency vehicle access. And, given the

configuration of Eighth Street and the cul-de-sac, there are few, if any, solutions to mitigate

them.

I came across a document from 1978 that put forth the original design guidelines for the

Navy Yard. It describes the streets as such: Three categories of streets have been established

within the Shipyard to provide clear and adequate access for automobiles, buses, and service

vehicles. Major streets carry the bulk of the traffic to and from the Yard at Gates Four and Five

and along First Avenue. Minor streets are primarily residential in character with cul-de-sacs

designed to preserve a major portion of the waters edge for pedestrian activity. A third type of

street is primarily pedestrian oriented.

From that description, it is clear that Eighth Street was never meant to be a highly

trafficked area. It is a narrow two-way street and the only street leading to Pier 5. Will a traffic

study be done? How can one effectively be conducted during a pandemic with the

commensurate reduction in traffic and activity? The restaurant, Pier 6, is closed; the marina is

dormant.

The picture below shows traffic backed up the entire length of Eighth Street in the busy

summer season when there was an event at the courageous Sailing Center. It is clear that

there are limitations to the capacity of Eighth Street to absorb increased traffic levels.

Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10

Below is a picture from February 2021 that shows that even in the midst of a pandemic

and without the restaurant or marina in operation, the cul-de-sac on Eighth Street is

congested. Several of these vehicles were parked there for hours. Delivery trucks that passed

through drove over the circular garden to get around, dislodging one of the large boulders put

there specifically for this reason.

Page 8 of 10

Delivery trucks necessary to supply a grocery store the size Urbanica proposes will

have the most impact on the area and 8th Street. How many trucks will be needed and what

time in the morning will deliveries begin? How often? Given the location right on the water,

also of concern is the fact that sounds are amplified over water. What will be done to mitigate

noise levels?

There are negative safety implications regarding access by fire, police and emergency

services because of increased congestion and bottlenecks in the area. A fire lane which is a

dead ended cul-de-sac rotary is the proposed service road for these three proposals. This fire

lane which is in fact Eighth Street has “No Parking” and is unfortunately already frequently

blocked with service vehicles and requires constant patrol to maintain safe access.

The ability to provide fire, police, ambulance and emergency vehicles to a large,

maze-like residential and commercial structure on Pier 5 over water on a pier with no

vehicle access is a situation that should raise concerns and be closely evaluated.

Unnecessary Engine Idling: Also related are the emissions generated right below a

residential building from idling passenger cars and potentially diesel trucks. Pre-Covid, this

was witnessed on a regular basis from party buses, Ubers, delivery trucks and passenger cars.

Unnecessary engine idling can be a significant source of air pollution, particularly for people

near the source. MGL Chapter 90, Section 16A states that:

“No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the unnecessary operation of the engine of a

motor motor vehicle while said vehicle is stopped for a foreseeable period of time in excess of

five minutes.” Based on direct experience, few if any vehicle operators follow this directive.

Parking: Where will construction vehicles, trucks and workers park during the

construction phase? (And where will construction supplies be stored during construction?)

All proponents discussed their planned use of 110 spaces at the Flagship Wharf garage

for use by residents of their developments. Is that adequate? One hundred new boat slips

were recently constructed at the marina on Pier 6 in addition to the restaurant expansion.

Where will these people park before one even thinks about accommodating one of three

proposals that will add about 100 new residences to the Navy Yard. What about employees?

6M indicated they anticipate having a highly staffed community. What about visitors,

restaurant patrons, grocery shoppers? There will be much more demand for parking generated

than the 110 spaces cited Further, there are several nearby new developments in the Navy

Yard, including the Ropewalk development, all being built without parking.

It should be noted that there are limited public transportation options in the area.

The Flagship Wharf garage recently accommodated Parris Landing parkers while their

garage was being repaired and had a difficult time managing the increase in vehicles which

caused congestion heading into the garage and traffic being backed up on 8th Street.

Between residents, full time workers, grocery store shoppers, restaurant goers, Pier 6 marina

users and visitors, the demand for parking could well exceed the need that 110 spaces can

supply and the ability of the garage with a one lane, one car at at time entrance, can handle.

Does the allocation of available garage spaces being assigned to the developers/

residents of a new residential development comply with Public Accommodation requirements

of Chapter 91 as it relates to the Flagship Wharf Garage?

Page 9 of 10

All proponents have seriously underestimated the parking requirements necessary

for their projects.

Trash Collection and Removal: Where will trash be collected and how and when will it

be removed? There already exists a rodent problem in the Navy Yard. I believe it was 6M that

indicated they were going to use the cul-de-sac on 8th Street for trash pickup, If that is the

plan, they should note that the cul-de-sac is narrow and a garbage truck collecting trash there

would block other traffic from being able to go around the cul-de-sac while trash is being

collected.

All proponents have seriously underestimated the logistical issues of collecting

trash, storing it safely and disposing of it without negatively impacting the surrounding

neighborhood.

Deliveries: One proponent indicated they will have diesel trucks crossing the Pier for

deliveries. I believe that vehicles crossing that part of the HarborWalk is not allowed based on

the original transfer documents or the deed, but this will need clarification. Who holds the

easement that allows vehicles to cross the HarborWalk? Will the easement holder still remain

responsible for repairs to the HarborWalk even after a new development will be using the

HarborWalk to cross for construction and subsequent operations? Who will be responsible for

HarborWalk repairs? More importantly, can theHarborWalk support the weight of delivery

trucks?

The Navy Blue proposal indicates that they will use Pier 6 to offload trucks. As it stands

now, often times trucks do not go on to Pier 6 to unload because there is no place for vehicles,

especially larger trucks, to turn around. The drivers will park their truck in the circle on 8th

Street and unload on trollies or hand carts and walk the goods down. We saw this almost

every time, pre-Covid, when a beer or produce truck made a delivery to Pier 6. As presented,

off-street loading plans by all proponents were extremely vague and what was presented have

some real issues.

__________

At one time Pier 5 was open space. No thought has been given to developing Pier 5 in

a way that would provide a true Special Public Destination Facility of the type contemplated by

Chapter 91 for projects on flowed tidelands. All of these proposals will eliminate most of the

open space in the last remaining pier at the head of the Boston Harbor. Pier 5 can be

revitalized in any number of creative ways. The Pier should be preserved for community use

that recognizes its special place at the intersection of the head of the Boston Harbor, in a site

rich in history and over precious flowed Commonwealth Tidelands.

In conclusion, the three proposed developments for Pier 5 are seriously deficient,

each in its own way and present an array of potential negative impacts. The BPDA

should have performed more due diligence prior to the RFP process and ascertained the

legal requirements under Chapter 91 and original transfer documents and the validity of

misleading definitions of residences and marinas. It is clear that none of the three

projects should be permitted to proceed as proposed.