Boston's Preparedness Efforts

By Melissa Suzel Deas and Lawrence Susskind

Boston established itself as an innovator in sustainability by being an early leader in climate mitigation and green living.¹ However, when it comes to climate preparedness, Boston, like many other cities, is still trying to define a strategy. Boston faces numerous hurdles to implementing a climate preparedness agenda, ranging from a lack of funding and coordination to uncertainty about which interventions are worth pursuing. Despite these hurdles, Boston has made one innovative modification in its permitting process that is moving its preparedness agenda forward.

In 1996 Boston added Article 80 to its zoning code. It gives the city broad authority to determine whether or not developers have successfully considered the potential impacts of proposed development projects.² The Boston Redevelopment Authority reviews all building permits for compliance with the city's zoning code. Based on Article 80, the BRA must determine whether a developer has properly considered possible impacts on transportation, the environment, and historic resources. This is triggered by an initial permit request called a Project Notification Form.

In 2013, the outgoing mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, added a requirement to the Article 80 process mandating that all large projects answer a checklist of questions regarding their plans to incorporate resilient design features that address climate-related risks. This questionnaire is modeled after an earlier amendment requiring developers to consider measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.³ Boston hopes this questionnaire will motivate developers to build green buildings — but also resilient ones. In this article, we look at the early responses of the development community to the new Article 80 requirement. The questionnaire will not by itself greatly reduce the city's overall vulnerability to climate related risks, but it represents a step toward enhancing climate preparedness and is creative given the hurdles the city faces.

Importantly, the idea of using permitting processes and zoning powers to promote preparedness is not only endorsed, but also strongly encouraged by some climate preparedness practitioners. The Georgetown Climate Center, a think tank on legal climate mitigation and preparedness issues, encourages cities to adopt zoning ordinances to regulate coastal development. They write, "Zoning is the most powerful tool that local governments have to preemptively mitigate hazards." (Grannis, 2)⁴

Reflecting their recommendation, the BRA can encourage adaptation through the Boston Zoning Code. However, it is somewhat restricted in this pursuit. Massachusetts law requires state approval before enforcing any restrictions that are more stringent than State Building Code.⁵ Even though the Building Code and Zoning Code are separate and are enforced by different agencies, this limits Boston's ability to enforce higher standards. BRA official John Dalzell explains that although the BRA has some leeway to use zoning to take environmental impacts or potential climate related risks into account, at the end of the day the agency must still respect the State Building Code's authority. As an example, he notes that Boston cannot use zoning to require stronger building foundations.⁶

Overall, the Article 80 review process represents an alternative to traditional zoning changes, which for Boston is arguably not only a more practical, but also a better solution. It allows Boston to experiment while still building local capacity. It also encourages developers to come up with creative solutions to a wide range of climate-related risks at a time when Boston, facing substantial uncertainty, may not feel ready to or be allowed to impose across-the-board regulations.

A brief history of climate preparedness in Boston

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall, causing havoc and billions of dollars of damage along the New Jersey and New York shores.⁷ In Boston, the story was different. Many trees were downed, and nearly 7,000 homes lost power, but flooding was minimal.⁸ Boston's success in coping with the impact of hurricane Sandy was attributed to pure luck: The storm surge hit Boston at low tide. If it had hit a few hours earlier, during high tide, more than six percent of Boston could have been underwater.⁹ For many politicians, business owners, and residents, Sandy served as a wake-up call. More needs to be done to protect the city against future storms and other climate-related risks.

Some Boston residents and politicians were actively concerned about the city's preparedness before 2012. In the 1980s, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority chose to raise the Deer Island Sewage Plant by nearly two feet to accommodate predicted sea-level rise during the life of the plant.¹⁰ Additionally, in 2004 and 2007 two scholarly publications looked at the city's vulnerabilities and suggested that Boston take steps to address climate-related risks head-on.¹¹ In 2007, Mayor Menino heeded their recommendation and signed an executive order calling for an evaluation of climate change-related risks for all new municipal construction and renovations.¹² In 2009, the Mayor's Climate Action Leadership Committee also suggested that Boston focus as much on adaptation as mitigation.

These early warnings prompted a more detailed analysis of Boston's risks, including a LIDAR scan of Boston providing precise elevation models that can be used to assess flood risks.¹³ Early warnings were also sounded by a small number of property owners. Most notably, in 2009 the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital decided to raise the base level of its new facility in Charlestown to take account of increased flood risk.¹⁴

Depending on whom you ask, Hurricane Sandy either compelled politicians to think more critically about climate preparedness or was used strategically by already concerned city leaders to mobilize a wider range of players. Regardless, most climate advocates we spoke with agreed that Hurricane Sandy prompted increased action. A couple of months after the storm, the mayor launched an aggressive climate preparedness agenda at the same time that a local nonprofit, The Boston Harbor Association, released Preparing For The Rising Tide. This report warns that if Boston were to see a 2.5-foot sea-level rise, a Sandy-like storm at high tide could cause more than 30 percent of the city to be flooded. The report also provided information that property owners can use to assess their own vulnerabilities.¹⁵

There have been other significant actions since 2012. Boston took advantage of a periodic update to its Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2013 to critically study how climate change might impact Boston. The city decided to focus on climate change even though the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not require this as part of those updates.¹⁶ In July, the Boston Society for Architects published a report on best practices for resilience planning in Boston. It focused on measures building owners can take to improve the resilience of their property as well as municipal strategies the city might employ. At the same time, the city announced that it would develop its first wetlands ordinance, which Boston hopes will be an important tool for coping with storm surge and coastal flooding.¹⁷

On the anniversary of Sandy in 2013, the mayor released a new assessment of vulnerability called Climate Ready Boston, summarizing the vulnerabilities of municipal operations to climate-related risks.¹⁸ That's when the mayor announced the changes to the permitting process, incorporating climate preparedness into project development. Finally, Boston is also promoting the use of district energy—smaller grids that serve a cluster of buildings—to protect against widespread power losses from flood events.¹⁹

The resilience questionnaire

The BRA's 2013 Article 80 update was aimed at encouraging property developers to think about climate change.²⁰ It asks that any developer submitting a project to be approved under Article 80B (Large Project Review) answer a brief questionnaire regarding how it is addressing the projected risks related to climate change (see sample questions in Appendix A).

Since 2007, the BRA has considered climate mitigation in its review of large projects (50,000 square feet or larger), requiring all large new construction projects to be certifiable under the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED process.²¹ Building on the success of this effort, the BRA sought to promote climate preparedness. The new questionnaire asks property owners to indicate whether their building is now, or might be, susceptible to flooding. If the answer is yes, it asks what measures the developer will take to ensure that new buildings can withstand inundation. The questionnaire also asks if developers have considered the capacity of buildings to weather severe storms, stay cool during periods of extreme heat, and deal with power outages.²²

The questionnaire includes some open-ended questions, such as "Will the building remain operable without utility power for an extended period? If yes, for how long?" These questions force respondents to consider a unique set of goals in building design: flood, wind, drought, and heat wave preparedness. Other questions ask developers to identify which of an approved set of strategies they will pursue to reach certain goals. For example, when the questionnaire asks: "What measures will the project employ to accommodate rain events and more rainfall?" it specifically asks respondents to select from the following options: on-site retention systems and ponds, infiltration galleries and areas, vegetated water-capture systems, and vegetated roofs. This type of question is key because it provides guidance that can help developers understand what actions are possible to mitigate the risks. The BRA also allows developers to provide their own answers, opening the door to techniques not included by the BRA.

Originally, the Article 80 questionnaire was simply a prod to get developers to think about preparedness. The BRA was not ready to suggest minimum design standards. At the outset, an acceptable answer to many of the questions was, "I do not know." As the BRA received more questionnaires and responses it was less willing to accept that answer. Within six months of making the questionnaire mandatory, the BRA had become more comfortable requiring certain minimum standards. It is now ready to provide developers with tools that allow them to select from among various adaptation techniques. BRA now encourages developers building within the floodplain to raise buildings at least one foot and adopt additional fortification techniques that will protect buildings against another two feet of high water. As the BRA and Boston property owners increase their understanding of climate preparedness, the BRA intends to adapt the minimum design strategies it imposes.²³

Why is Article 80 an innovative approach to permitting?

Despite Boston's increased attention to climate preparedness, the city faces a number of hurdles and challenges that have stymied progress. Climate science is inexact about the climate-related risks the city will face. While general trends (sea-level rise, warmer temperatures) can be predicted with a high level of confidence, downscaled information that shows exactly which parcels are at risk and the exact magnitude of risks is less certain. Additionally, there is uncertainty about which preparedness techniques are likely to have the highest benefit compared to costs. In addition, the city does not control much of its own infrastructure. Roads, transit lines, electricity utilities, and other elements of critical infrastructure are in regional, state, or private hands. As stated earlier, Massachusetts law dictates that Boston cannot enforce a building code that is stricter than what the state requires without state approval.²⁴ Therefore, the city is leading by example by assessing and planning for municipal buildings.²⁵ However, these represent only a small fraction of the at-risk property in the city. Finally, climate preparedness is as much about education as it is about action, and convincing people they need to take future risks seriously is no easy task.²⁶ Incorporating the climate-preparedness questionnaire into the permitting process is not a complete solution and will not in itself make Boston a truly climate-resilient city. However, it will allow the city to make real progress given the many obstacles it faces.

This nonprescriptive model has several benefits. First, it forces developers to demonstrate, in writing, that they have tried to account for climate risks. Developers choose which sea-level rise scenario they are basing their plans on, how long they expect their building to last, and how the building's design will enhance resilience during that lifespan. This makes it impossible for developers to ignore climate change considerations. At the same time, it does not force Boston to make determinations about which level of risk is acceptable. Because the models are evolving, abstaining from making a regulatory decision on the acceptable level of risk has political benefits.

Second, it creates opportunities innovation. Some developers have come up with ideas that go beyond what Boston requires in its building code and zoning rules. Some property owners are choosing to elevate beyond what is required based on current floodplain maps or electively adding stormwater backflow prevention in buildings not yet in the flood zone.²⁷ The questionnaire approach allows for two-way learning. Boston provides basic information to developers about how they might mitigate risk, but it also learns about potential new strategies that the city had not initially considered.

Third, the questionnaire approach allows for substantial variability, accommodating diverse buildings in diverse settings. The climate preparedness solution appropriate for one building might not make sense for all buildings, even others on the same block. The Article 80 questionnaire allows each project developer to proceed in a way that may make the most sense for their property.

Article 80 and community awareness

Although climate preparedness is increasingly part of the policy dialogue in Boston, policy makers, community leaders, and residents we spoke with generally agreed that increased community awareness is crucial. As one respondent put it: "It is hard to convince people that the coastline they have known for their entire lives will change," or that the city might need new strategies to deal with heat, snow, and rain beyond what it has relied on for the last 100 years."²⁸ Additionally, faced with limited resources, people often prioritize immediate needs over future risks, thereby undervaluing the risks posed by climate change.

The climate-preparedness questionnaire increases community awareness by forcing developers, who may not consider climate change a top priority or are unaware of the potential risks to their property, to think critically about the issue. It also forces developers to confront forecasts that show their current and possible future flood risks. In addition, the questionnaire asks developers and residents to consider often-overlooked factors such as increasing wind velocity, potential heat waves, and the likely impacts of extended power outages or interruptions in water supplies. While developers can still choose whether or how to minimize these risks, simply asking them to take them into account has already inspired some to take action. John Dalzell and Kathleen Pedersen, who review responses at the BRA, say they have seen developers change building designs in response to the questionnaire. Developers of projects that had not considered future flood risk have chosen to move critical electrical equipment out of basements and elevated ground floors.

Article 80 and uncertainty

Article 80 allows Boston to shift some of the burden for determining acceptable levels of climate risk to private developers. No one yet knows exactly how and when the climate will change. Policy makers are forced to rely on modeling tools and techniques that provide partial answers. As technology improves, less expensive or more effective climate risk-management strategies may appear.

Climate preparedness activists fall into more than one camp. One group believes that we should wait for better models before pursuing expensive infrastructure investments or modifying public policies. This faction reasons that without more compelling information, the chances of investing in the wrong interventions or adopting policies that will prove unnecessary could create a backlash against all climate preparedness efforts. A second camp believes that the time to act is now. They reason that the risk of waiting exceeds the likelihood that current forecasts will turn out to be incorrect. They believe it is certain enough that sea levels will rise, storm intensity and flooding will increase, and that summer heat will be an increasing problem.

Article 80 offers a way forward while this debate continues. Instead of Boston determining acceptable levels of risk for all buildings and imposing them, the city is asking developers to simply prove that they have given the issue some thought. Developers have to explain, given the current understandings and risk management tools, how they plan to respond.

Article 80 and difficult metrics

Taking action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is quite different from figuring out how to adapt to climate risks. One clear advantage that mitigation has over preparedness is that there is a defined method for measuring success—cities can report their greenhouse gas emissions and celebrate reductions. This is not true with climate preparedness. Boston, like many cities, is grappling with how best to measure the effectiveness of climate preparedness measures. A preparedness indicator cannot simply be the opposite of a vulnerability indicator. A truly climate-prepared city is one that is not merely protected against known risks, but also has the capacity to adapt, adjust, and protect itself against unexpected challenges as they arise. A climate-prepared city can both prevent damage and rebound from it quickly, with minimal disruptions to its social and economic operations.²⁹ As such, preparedness is not only an outcome, but also a process that builds local capacity. Without clear metrics to evaluate the city's preparedness, it is hard to track progress and keep the public informed.

Article 80 does not directly address this issue. However, Boston can build momentum and good press around every project that takes climate preparedness into account. The Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, one of the first buildings to address climate preparedness, has already attracted wide recognition.³⁰ If Boston is able to increase the number of developments designed to be climate resilient, it will have something tangible to report. 

Article 80 and lack of funding

While city revenues are increasing, there is not a great deal of public funding available specifically for climate preparedness. In the absence of federal or state assistance, Boston has largely had to fund climate preparedness on its own.³¹ As noted, the city has used FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Plan update process to enhance available climate risk analyses, a process that is already tied to available federal funds. Going forward, the city plans to incorporate climate analysis into other preexisting planning processes. This not only helps decrease costs, but also ensures that climate change is being addressed from multiple perspectives.³²

The Article 80 reform is an example of this effort. Since the Article 80 review process already existed, it minimizes the additional work that city officials must take on. Moreover, many of the costs involved in complying with Article 80 are the responsibility of private developers, who must answer the questions. Developers already expect to prepare site-specific analyses and impact assessments.

Article 80 and lack of control of key infrastructure

Roads, tunnels, power, water, and transit are the operational systems that allow the city to run. Protecting these systems is essential to Boston's preparedness. However, for the most part, Boston does control these key elements of its infrastructure. The Massachusetts Bay Area Transit System, which runs the subway and bus system, is a regional body.³³ The state and federal governments control the port and many of the roads and tunnels within the city. The energy systems and telecommunication systems are privately owned. The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority is also an independent regional body. Without actual control of these systems, the city must find mechanisms to encourage other agencies to be proactive about climate preparedness.³⁴

Article 80 does not directly attack this problem; it is a method to reach private property owners who control the vast majority of the buildings in the city. Additionally, some private developers said that public services and infrastructure should be held to the same standards that they were expected to meet during the permitting process. It remains to be seen, but the new Article 80 requirements might increase public support and pressure on private utilities, regional authorities, and state agencies to do their part.

How well is it working?

The Article 80 process is still in the early stages. None of the projects required to answer the questionnaire thus far has been completed. Thus, it is hard to know whether developers are sticking to the design strategies specified in their permits. This also means it is too soon to tell which design strategies for coping with climate risks have been effective.

Despite this, the BRA has reported that it has already learned a great deal about potential resilience-enhancing ideas. As of May 2014, the BRA estimated it had received about 40 completed questionnaires and that private developers are beginning to settle on similar answers to key questions. This makes it easier for the BRA to quickly identify developers who are using what appear to be creative techniques, as well as those whose answers are insufficient. When developers do not take the questions seriously, the BRA is following up, suggesting resources that can help developers generate more informed answers.³⁵

The BRA also reports that developers are increasingly willing to address sea-level rise in their design plans. Therefore, the agency feels comfortable requiring developers to raise buildings at least a foot above the current flood risks. Developers have had a harder time coming to grips with the likelihood of power outages or the need for heat mitigation. The BRA may consider revising some of its questions to motivate developers to think more critically about these issues.³⁶ The long-term success of the questionnaire will partially hinge on the BRA's ability to make some hard calls about what minimum standards it expects. Unless it can do that, the questionnaire runs the risk of being more symbolic than functional. 

Despite the questionnaire's lack of real teeth, the BRA believes it is prompting action. This claim is supported by one conversation we had with a consulting firm that prepares environmental permitting documents for developers. The firm said that having to answer the questionnaire led their client to look more carefully at the likely impacts of sea-level rise. Their client chose to increase the elevation of its building beyond what had originally been designed. The consulting firm agrees that one of the strengths of the questionnaire is that it asks developers to consider climate preparedness early enough to allow building designs to change dramatically.³⁷

The BRA reported seeing examples of innovation. In one case, a large frozen food company originally was indifferent to power resilience. The company stated in its questionnaire that it was such a heavy user of electricity that power outages would lead to inevitable financial loss since its on-site generators could not fill its needs. After the company was asked to reevaluate this answer, it found that with better insulation the building could be designed to hold a consistent temperature for four to five days without power. This is a particularly exciting example because the building is not only more resilient to power losses, but also more energy-efficient on a daily basis.³⁸

Not all developers have viewed the questionnaire positively. One permitting consultant explained that some developers already do an adequate job of considering building safety issues in the normal process of building design. He believed that the questionnaire simply creates an unnecessary hassle. This individual was skeptical about whether Boston would see the sea-level rise that others have forecasted, noting that if it did occur, the city would be facing much larger problems than any building design modifications could adequately address.³⁹ Another individual pointed out that private developers want assurances that Boston is doing what is needed to ensure that critical services and infrastructure are as resilient as possible.⁴⁰ Developers are worried that even if they build the most resilient buildings possible, Boston will not be able to prevent roads from flooding or deliver clean water and power. So what's the point?

Finally, the same consulting firm that praised the questionnaire for asking questions at a time when developers could still update building designs noted that all designs described during permitting are preliminary and likely to change during construction.⁴¹ This makes it hard to predict what measures will actually make it through the long process of completing the project.

Conclusion

Article 80 will not address all of Boston's climate vulnerabilities. It only applies to new construction, and most of the climate risks facing the city are a product of old buildings that were built when codes were much less strict. Article 80 also does not address infrastructure risks or other critical services that are out of the city's control.

Arguably, climate preparedness involves both concrete interventions that mitigate climate-related risk and building capacity within governance and social structures to respond to those risks (Cutter et al.).⁴² Adding the resilience questionnaire to the Article 80 permitting process speaks to both aspects of climate preparedness.

The questionnaire is implementable in the face of uncertainty, allowing Boston to build more resilient structures as it continues to debate what resilient design standards are most appropriate. Even more, it creates a structure within the governing body (in this case the Boston Redevelopment Authority) that has an open dialogue with developers. This could help both developers and the local government better understand how to adapt to climate change. Further, the BRA has specifically allowed the questionnaire to be modifiable, giving it opportunities to reevaluate and rework questions as more information is learned. Despite its limitations, the Article 80 climate-preparedness questionnaire is noteworthy and worth considering in other cities.  

Melissa Suzel Deas is a graduate student in MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Susskind Fellow at the Consensus Building Institute. Lawrence Susskind is the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at MIT and vice chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.