Diane <dianevalle@gmail.com>	Fri, May 24, 2024, 9:47 PM
to Natalie, Devin, Arthur

Dear Natalie and BPDA, 

In the contact of Mayor Wu attending the Vatican Climate Change Summit, it is important that Pier 5 RFP Pricess be reconsidered. It is esstiane the BPDA schedule a new meeting for the public’s clarification. 

Over the course of this convening, leaders around the world highlighted the ways that each of our communities are experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change and taking action to mitigate and adapt, said Mayor Wu: 

 “After hearing so many inspiring examples of community organizing, technological advances, and local innovation for sustainability, now is the time for collective action to amplify and multiply our progress. I’m proud for Boston to be among the original signatories of this global commitment to make each community a home for everyone and for our planet—our common home—to be healthy, connected, and prosperous for generations to come.” 

I am writing in response to the Pier 5 RFP BPDA  process which must be extended due to the need to correct for the public the considerable BPDA lack of clarity, abundant misinformation and considerable obfuscation:

1. Building on Pier 5 was not mentioned, which misled the majority of the public to believe there will be a public park, with no buildings on Pier 5.

2. The BPDA presentation included images of Pier 5 “visions” which did not include any buildings, further misleading the public there will be a public park, with no buildings.

3. When asked directly during the public meeting if the BPDA has been approached by anyone with interest in Pier  5, you stated “No.” This response is not accurate, and obfuscates the fact that Courageous Sailing has expressed interest in Pier 5, as well as interest in building a building on Pier 5. Select groups have been showed the CSC slide deck of architect’s renderings for Courageous Sailing, and BPDA officials are well aware of the interest and the renderings. A “no” answer is not true, and misled the public.

4. Courageous Sailing personnel, Board and advocates were on that call, heard the question regarding interest in Pier 5,  and your answer of “no” there has been no interest and they did not speak up to correct the record. This confounds the misinformation, and further supported the idea Pier 5 will be a public park without a building. 

It is imperative that the BPDA host another BPDA RFP public meeting so the record is set straight, the public is fairly informed, and Courageous Sailing’s renderings are presented, and any others who have expressed interest, as well as BPDA clarification of Pier 5 RFP LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS,  the size, scope, height, impact, etc that will be allowed or what restrictions are to be considered. 

Until critical questions are answered and clarifications made it is premature to contemplate the issuing of another RFP for Pier 5.  

Please schedule a public meeting, and include Courageous, and allow a presentation from Pier 5 Association  who has submitted a rendering derived from community engagement with the public,  representing the public needs, wants and requests. Both non profits deserve time to present to the public to share information, best practices, and concerns. 

I support the concerns that Sherrie Cutler submitted to the BPDA: 

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 flooded waters” be clearly designated in any RFP?

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

A focus of this meeting of these “Water Dependant 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 would 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 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. Master Plan Vision for the historic Head of the Boston Harbor Pier Area: These explications or illustrations required would normally have been resolved and presented in a clear Master Plan for an historic area, 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.

Please confirm receipt?

Please schedule an open, well advertised, hybrid public meeting to discuss the above items PRIOR to writing an RFP.

All the best. 

Diane Valle

617-791-5663