Sherrie S Cutler A.I.A. <sscutler@ecodesign.com>	Jun 1, 2024, 7:57 PM
to BPDA, BPDA, BPDA, BPDA, Councilor, Ed, Elizabeth, Gabriela, Julia, benjamin.weber, brian.worrell, entrique.pepen, erin.murphy, henry.santana, john.fitzgerald, ruthzee.louijeune, sharon.durkan, meghan.kavanagh, Chief, Aimee, Chynah.Tyler, Jay, Michelle, Michlewitz, John, Nick.Collins, William.Brownsberger, arthur.jemison, liz.miranda, lydia.edwards, Adrian.Madaro, Dan.Ryan@mahouse.gov, David.Biele, Christopher.Worrell, Russell.Holmes, Bill.Macgregor, Brandy.FlukerOakley, Daniel.Hunt, Rob.Consalvo, Samantha.Montano, Kevin.Honan, Michael.Moran, Mike.Rush, Senator

Re: Clarifications Prior to Pier 5 RFP and Meeting of “Water Dependent Use” Participants 

Hello Natalie-Until critical questions are answered and clarifications made, it is premature to contemplate the issuing of another RFP for Charlestown Navy Yard’s Pier 5.  Previous RFPs issued by the BPDA for Pier 5 have been wasteful and a mis-use of participant’s time and money 

––and ended in failure because of lack of clarity.

The clarifications and questions that need to be answered before a RFP is prepared for the historic Head of the Boston Harbor Pier Area include:

1. Will the original intent of Chapter 91 finally prevail in the face of new engineering information and obvious dangers of sea level rise to coastal properties?  I.E. Will true “water dependent uses only over tidal floodwaters” be clearly designated in any RFP?This

 correct Chapter 91 definition: “Water Dependent Use”, must be designated for this area. Then, in this case, the only use participants would be 1) Courageous Sailing Center, 2) a Maritime park or 3) Marina, fishing or maritime transportation uses. This would indicate that a meeting of these three use interests would be in order to determine any mutualities… opportunities to co-ordinate opportunities and required public access.

A focus of a meeting of these “Water Dependent Use” participants would be consideration of how of how Piers 4, 5, and 6 could operate to support and be beneficial to each other.

2.  Preservation of view-shed easements from Harborwalk is another area that must be addressed in an RFP. Although the presentation made by the BPDA clearly showed no structures, a more direct question implied that structures might be allowed. This is in contrast to the original scope of the Engineering Study by Foth Engineers which was to study the viability of the pier for pedestrian use only.  That study did not include engineering capabilities for structures.

3.  Facilitating Public/Private, Grants and Non-Profit Organizations: Because these true “Water Dependent Use” compliant types of Chapter 91 such as a Sailing Center or a Maritime Park are more oriented towards public amenities and values, some of the best proposals would be aided through grants and nonprofits. Any RFP should clarify the availability and assurances of letters through the Boston and the BPDA, as the property owner, to such grant entities assuring the availability of the Pier area to such grant aided proposals.  The Community Preservation Act requires approval letters from the Mayor in order to raise money for public property.

4.  Selection Criteria should also be stipulated prior to the issuing of a PDF.  RFPs that are too open-ended and lack Selection Criteria are destined for non-participation and/or failure.  For a successful RFP project, proposers need to know what is desired or intended by the presenting institution of the RFP, in this case the BPDA, and the Community that institution serves.
5. Master Plan Vision for the historic Head of the Boston Harbor Pier Area:  Alternative Vision explications or illustrations would normally have been explored, resolved and presented in a clear Master Plan for an historic area ––A Master Plan prepared by a city’s independent Planning Department, and included in the RFP to be bid on. 

This Master Plan would have evolved from a vision formulated by Boston’s CIty Planners and Urban Design Professionals as well as Climate Resilience consultants, not by Developers.  The Boston’s CIty Planners / Urban Design Professionals and Climate Resilience consultants, responsible for that vision should be a part of the meeting of “Water Dependent Use” Participants

The vague, “throw it to the wind” in an RFP, approach that has been taken in prior BPDA RFP for Pier 5 is a disincentive for participation in any RFP as it opens the question of whether the BPDA may already have predeterminations based on private conversations with other possible participants.  To eliminate this misinterpretation of the intent, the clarifications described above are necessary.

Sincerely,

SSC

Sherrie S. Cutler, A.I.A.

sscutler@ECODESIGN.com

970-948-8822