Too many left out of process, agency says

The city’s review process for new developments has long been a tug-of-war among stakeholders, often pitting the surrounding community against petitioners for zoning exemptions. But a new survey by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) shows both camps united in dissatisfaction with the current process, as well as a mismatch between the residents most typically engaged and the city’s overall population.

In two portions of the survey, the BPDA asked community participants and developers about experience with the process for larger projects subject to Article 80 review. Another portion, aimed at people not currently involved, was about community barriers to participation.

Part of Mayor Wu’s effort to modernize Article 80, under which individual projects are evaluated for design, density, use, and physical and social impacts, the survey results were based in part on working sessions with city and BPDA staff, community leaders, institutions, project proponents and development teams. A draft report on the results was released last month.

The BPDA found that response to its survey on community experience and mitigation was skewed toward homeowners (75 percent), long-time residents (70 percent, and residents who were over age 55 (56 percent) or white (80 percent).

The response to the community barriers survey was drawn from a sample with a much higher representation of renters (88 percent and people of color (80 percent). The sample was also younger, with 40 percent under the age of 35.

Of those responding to the community barriers survey, 86 percent said they would be interested in participating in a BPDA process. When asked about barriers to participation, 39 percent cited the lack of time for meetings, while smaller samples cited “unwelcoming environments” or a belief that attending a meeting would not have an impact.

“I think one of the key findings that the survey validated for us was that it's very important in thinking about the future of community engagement to be as broad and as diverse as we can in the methods that we use to talk to people in the city,” said BPDA Deputy Director of Master Planning and Policy Nupoor Monani.

According to BPDA Deputy Director of Community Engagement Kristiana Lachiusa, the community barriers survey showed that “a lot of people, regardless of whether they are or are not involved in development projects today, want to be involved in learning more and shaping development projects in their neighborhood.”

According to the BPDA report for Phase 1 of the modernization effort, “This data suggests that changing the BPDA’s outreach methods could expand the population that takes part in our processes to be more representative of the City.” Both BPDA officials said that could require reaching engaging the community in different languages, through different channels of contact and, as Lachiusa put it, “communicating in a way that is actually resonating.”

Among community members asked about their experience with the review process, 82 percent wanted a “more defined approach” to project mitigation and community benefits. They also took issue with the role in the review process of “impact advisory groups” (IAGs), with 65 percent not agreeing that the groups were transparent and trusted, and 56 percent not agreeing that the groups were reflective of the community.

“What we're trying to do,” said Monani, “is essentially work to make sure that the people that are represented on IAGs really represent who lives and works in Boston today, and find ways to do that while still keeping all of our engaged users involved in the process.”

By 71 percent, the community members also favored defining community benefits and mitigation uniformly according to project types, or standards such as location, use, or size.

In the portion of the survey on developer experience, the leading complaint was that the timeline of an application for project approval was not predictable. The next most frequent complaints were about a lack of consistency in the approach to mitigation from project to project, and a failure to receive all benefit and mitigation requests on time.

In Boston’s outlying neighborhoods, including Dorchester, community participation in development review has long been dominated by neighborhood associations, with membership skewed toward homeowners.

During the surge in housing production over the past decade, the review process for larger projects also drew participation from groups advocating more affordable housing and trying to prevent displacement. This occurred with the “Dot Block” development, the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs in East Boston and Revere, and in a section of Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. All three areas are close to rapid transit lines, but in neighborhoods with mounting concerns about displacement and the rising cost of housing.

Under Wu, the BPDA has coupled its modernization of the review process with an initiative to reduce barriers to higher-density development near main intersections and public transit. In 2019, two years before her election as mayor, she issued a report criticizing the Article 80 process for a lack of transparency and consistency. She also called for a review process that would be driven less by reaction to developer plans and more by proactive planning with the community.

“With a more standardized, streamlined, and transparent process,” Wu argued in the report, “community members would know what to expect from developers and how to meaningfully engage in the process; residents would be equipped to hold city officials and developers accountable; and developers and businesses would benefit from predictability and a clear understanding of process, including expected project benefits.”

As Nupoor noted, the changes anticipated in Article 80 coincide with efforts to make the review process more “planning-led.” Even if developers can exercise leverage through control of property, she explained, all sides should have more clarity in advance about the nature of what can be built, as well as the kinds of community benefits and mitigation.

“A key component of that negotiation is what the city and the communities get in exchange for those development rights and entitlements, and that tends to be one of the more unpredictable parts of the process as it currently exists,” said Nupoor, “so what we want to do also is create a greater focus, analyze exactly how and why, and all of the different ways in which we can standardize community benefits and mitigation.”

Note: the BPDA continues to seek public participation in the Article 80 modernization initiative. For more information: https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/improving-development-review-process-article-80