Notes by Concerned Charlestown Citizens for submission by Barbara Babin, Navy Yard Representative to the Charlestown Neighborhood Council (CNC)

1. What we Heard: 

An 11/17/10 Community meeting to review and discuss the BRA  new RFP on the Navy Yard’s Pier 5 after the failure of the developer Martin Oliner to implement his group’s proposed project, was held at the request of the CNC and the FCNY at the Constitution Inn.  The meeting was attended by a representative from the BRA and a serious group of local residents who were able to attend the 7pm meeting on a busy pre-holiday mid-week day.  Most were optimistic for a new opportunity and a new era, post-recession, for what many consider the potential “crown jewel” of the Historic Charlestown Navy Yard.

The BRA presentation consisted of an ariel photo of Pier 5 and a short verbal description that it was a pier of certain dimensions on pilings in need of replacement.  The BRA did not describe what the information to be included in the RFP would be, only that the representative had been “instructed to get the RFP out by Thanksgiving.”  In the absence of more detail as to the situation, the comments from the community began cautiously, with many questions.  Residents sought clarification on a number of questions, which they wanted answered before providing further input. 

2. Questions:

Clarification on status of pier and pilings.  Questions as to the actual condition of the pier and the cost and impact of repairs/ demolition/ reconstruction/ legality of reconstruction of the Pier that would be needed for a range of uses from a simple platform for public “Water-Dependent Uses” to the maximum impact and coverage of 5 story plus additional 1 + stories of mechanical space proposed by Oliner.  This information is probably known to the BRA but, although requested prior, was not made available to this meeting.

Status of various master plans, zoning and various permitting required.  Questions were raised related to the long standing disputes such as the relinquishing of development rights on Pier 5 by the original developer in return for the right to build the 2 new wings on the Flagship Wharf building (Approx. 68 units plus commercial space).  Suggestions were made that performance requirements, performance funds and cost/benefit analysis be included as part of the RFP.

Status of Pier 5 relative to Masterplans and Transfer Documents.  Issues include: Chapter 91, Harborwalk, SPDFs, parking, use of BRA 2%, etc. were discussed but not clarified or resolved.    Transfer documents from the US Navy and MA Historic Commission also carried specifications regarding pier demolition/footprint and “maintaining of views and vistas”.

Engineering and environmental requirements related to pier reconstruction.  These include spacing and depth of the pilings and subsurface conditions, such for applicability to use as an under pier tidal energy field.  These potentials could not be addressed as no plans, sections, soil studies or other technical or test data were made available.  

Guidance re Global Warming, Security and related recent initiatives. In BRA’s role as “Boston’s Chief Planner” do they see a need for re-zoning of coastal areas and mitigation plans in consideration of: 1) TBHA Boston Sea Level Rise Forum; 2) Harbor security, especially relative to  expanded LNG tanker access at 50 yds. off the end of Pier 5; 3) The Mayor’s 2030 Initiative; 4) LEEDS certification; 5) Recovery challenges and Green Technology stimulus opportunities?  Is it possible that the older envisioned guidances for Pier 5 must be revised?

Sudden urgency and need to release an RFP.    The site in question is both very controversial and contentious.  The community wonders why an RFP is being assembled so rapidly on this prominent site just before the Holidays.  Speculation was noted that this might be a legal red herring maneuver related to the potential actions of the earlier developer.  

Questions that should also be asked:  

• How will this RFP be composed, what will the format be and how will the BRA solicit bidders?  Will it be directed to a small cadre of inner developers or through a national or international pipeline?  Will specific institutes and public agencies be targeted?

• Will sufficient time be allowed for new potential developers, other than the usual condo developers, to learn about this RFP and do the substantial legal, preliminary design, financial, insurance, permitting, impact assessment and mitigation research required to make a responsible proposal?  

• Will the RFP be open to options such as “development transfer rights”, “fees in lieu of taxes”  related to non-profits, and other innovative planning techniques to encourage the “Highest and Best Use” of a site of National and Regional importance to the public?  Will we see the draft RFP and how it projects these potentials prior to it’s issue?

3.  The residents attending the meeting and providing input afterward at this early stage in the process expressed the following set of sentiments :

Pier 5 is an Historic Landmark that is in a most sensitive location at the Head of the Harbor and the junction of the Charles and Mystic Rivers. Once the prime production pier of the fabled WWII powerhouse shipyard, it is now adjacent to 2 valuable community educational resources in the Courageous sailing center and the Seaport Academy.  The site is very exposed to wind, weather and shipping traffic.  It is both a National and a Community resource that should give access directly to the Boston Harbor for the Public.  Even on an interim basis, Pier 5 should not be presented as a fenced off eyesore and should be resurfaced and opened to public recreation.

A list of “DON’T”s was compiled:

• No more condominiums or rental units 

• No more bankruptcies or bail-out conversions in our Navy Yard

• No obfuscation with the maintenance, continuation and full implementation of Harborwalk

• No vehicular crossing (except emergency) of the Harborwalk

• No massive overbuilding such as the earlier Oliner proposal or the Harborview and Constellation Wharf projects

• No barriers and walls of development separating us from our Harbor waters and/or blocking of sight lines as described in the original Transfer Documents.

• No more surprises such as relocating the Water Shuttle, on which many residents depended to commute, to piers away from the demographic center of year-round resident use.

• No proposals considered without full parking plans for unambiguous, feasible, authorized and adequate parking.  Pier 5, being over water, can provide no onsite underground parking levels;  The impact of duplication of all trips on traffic and harborwalk must be mitigated or avoided.  

• No interference or encroachment on the sailing space (water or wind) of the Courageous Sailing Center

4.  Suggestions for “Highest and Best Use”:

The group then conveyed constructive suggestions and support.  Still recognizing the lack of information and answers to their questions, the residents began to make tentative suggestions:

What is the Highest and Best Use for Historic NVY Pier 5 — Boston’s Head of the Harbor and the Battle of Bunker Hill Beachhead? 

“Public Use, open space and park use, mixed use, water dependent use, low impact use, full public access and enjoyment use.  Public uses that provide the social justice of clear and full and barrier-free access to the amenities and resources of our City.  Not “out of scale” public uses at the scale of the Sidney Opera House or the TD Boston Garden, but public uses at an appropriate scale and purpose specific to Pier 5’s position in Boston’s History and it’s Harbor.”

•  Maritime / Energy Research Station and Related Green Technology Institutional Offices

•  Boston Alternative Energy / Marine Technology Innovation Exhibition Gallery

•  Tidal energy field under-pier use for tidal energy and research utilizing 9’ -14’ tides

•  Maritime Museum (Peabody Essex Museum exterior collection satellite) and/or Boston Maritime & WWII-NVY History Museum

•  Maritime Park, including Memorial to WWII NVY Workers, dedication bricks, fishing , seating  and viewing areas or platforms, life-cycle, jogging track, seagrass and solar landscape composition

•  Marina, Yacht Clubs, Boat launch accessibility and dry-storage structure including Courageous Sailing 

•  Elegant gourmet harbor-side restaurant (only 3 true harbor-side restaurants in Boston Harbor)

•  All of the Above… Vital Public Mixed Land Use! 

5.  Community Participation

Our Community is not a professional planning authority, but it is our job to help realize a vision if there is an inspired vision from those who have that authority.  It is also our job to inspire a vision if one is absent and ask that those who have the power to create it do just that.  If the vision exists, many city planning authorities will often turn to a design competion, with guidelines to that vision, for even more inspiration.     

We in the Navy Yard feel there are strong long range economic and social benefits to the Navy Yard, Boston, MA and the region that would be derived from attracting vibrant 21st Century growth businesses, such as Green Technology R & D, to our “NVY Head of the Harbor Pier 5”.

Also reference:

• CNC Responses, CWC Letters “Conditions for RFP for Pier 5”, FCNY Letters

• Copies of Letters from original EIS from Community