FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: November 19, 2020

RE: Climate Action Council Land Use and Local Government Panel meeting

Chair
Sarah Crowell, Director of the Office of Planning Development and Community Infrastructure

Mark Lowery, Assistant Director, Office of Climate Change - New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Jessica Bacher, Managing Director - Pace University School of Law, Land Use Law Center
Jayme Breschard, Thomann, Senior Project Manager - Bergmann PC
Kevin Law, President and Chief Executive Officer - Long Island Association
Katie Malinowski, Executive Director - New York State Tug Hill Commission
Ed Marx, Former Commissioner of Planning - Tompkins County Department of Planning and
Sustainability
Kathy Moser, Chief Conservation Officer - Open Space Institute
Priya Mulgaonkar, Resiliency Planner - New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
Gita Nandan, Co-founder and Board Chair - Resilience, Education, and Training Innovation (RETI)
Center
Juan Camilo Osorio, Assistant Professor - Pratt Institute, School of Architecture
Eric Walker, Climate and Clean Energy Strategist

1
2
Dazzle Ekblad: Thank you for having me at this pivotal time as we face racism in a clear way than
we have done in the recent past and the realities of climate change. The Climate Smart Communities
Program (CSC) is meant to help communities take action with broad application. Different
communities have a different sense of community. This approach is comprehensive and flexible
because local governments are critical parts of the State’s mission to limit greenhouse gases and
build a green economy. Another goal is to help communities build their capacity so they can be less
reliant on state and taxpayer dollars.

3
4
Ekblad: This is the new structure that has been in place for about three years, no longer siloed away
from other agencies and entities. The CSC Program has evolved to follow a structure that includes
state and local governments where input at all levels contribute to making a just transition.
Bringing new voices to the table is essential to meet GHG limits by 2030. CSC is a way to foster
creative thinking and help define and transform solutions for quick movement. Bottom up input
meets the top-down perspective intended to help local governments navigate the maze of local
programs to streamline access to state resources.

5
Ekblad: The creation of these actions has been informed by different contractors, agencies and
experts to help local governments implement these complicated actions.

Camilo Osorio: Are there other precedents in terms of engaging local communities themselves or
advocates in the planning process? For example, are there programs where people outside local
government can apply for resources?

Ekblad: There have been some municipalities that are the eligible applicants who then subcontract
to various partners or nonprofits including academic institutions such as SUNY. The town of
Hamilton and Colgate decided to start a local committee with town and local representatives and
eventually achieved bronze CSC certification. So, people have come together to complete projects
and do research to get that certification. Potsdam also partnered with local universities as well. We
are open to expanding our funding programs over time to entities who are not one of the four types
of local government. Sometimes in a given community the local government might not be a strong
player and groups can step in to fill that leadership gap, so it’s important to design programs to
build bridges between strong players and find ways for them to contribute.

Lowery: You said, the eligible entities aren’t set in stone, but they are set in regulation. The
requirement that eligible partners are municipalities would require a regulatory change but the
program is almost always oversubscribed, so why expand the scope of applicants if the money is
not available? Are there ways the pot could be split differently to make it more effective?

Ekblad: In general, we may need to rethink how we provide support to local governments. In order
to achieve just change we have to work with local actors more and find new solutions. It is difficult
to navigate most of the State’s grant programs, need to ask if there is a better way. Investments in
regional coordinators is one way rather than asking an already under-resourced municipality.

Marx: We need much broader and faster action to reach our goals. The CEV Vehicle Program was
simple, specific, and had available funding. Could that offer a model for high profile and high impact
actions to get broad participation to achieve something of substance? Municipalities are not being

6
reached and certified enough throughout the State. Should be thinking of things that are simple,
direct and have impact.

Ekblad: If we look at the number of registered CSC partners, we are at 314 but that is compared to
the 1,600 local governments. We are making progress, but I agree that if there were more
streamlined, simple, and targeted programs, then we would be further along. The CEV program is
fairly straight forward, with some basic qualifications that need to be met, but not truly competitive
like other programs are. NYSERDA had a unified solar program that I do not believe is still in effect,
that offered incentives to municipalities without strings attached regarding how they could use that
money. There is an advantage in offering financial incentives to smaller local governments that can
have broad appeal without putting it in the hands of technical experts at the State. The CSC is
aiming to offer such a simplified program that is accessible for a community to achieve a clean
energy certification and earn grants.

Bacher: Everything ultimately depends on capacity, so we need to at least get communities past the
point of researching what programs exist, this at least gives a starting point to encourage further
coordination across agencies. It can be very helpful for a community as a resource that can then be
built on as an initial starting point.

Ekblad: One trend we saw in communities participating in both the CSC and NYSERDA Clean Energy
Programs was that when grants were first awarded to communities, many were eager to keep going
and began thinking beyond those initial mandated actions to the CSC model and how they could be
more engaged in the community. They realized that it’s not just about quickly getting a grant, but in
thinking in new ways and move toward a better life in the community and for the environment. The
CSC program gives a model to building in that direction with more broad engagement.

Sarah Crowell: Thank you Dazzle. Next is a progress report on draft strategies to review and outline
how to best develop recommendations for the Climate Action Council.

7
8
Beyer: Notes that disadvantaged communities will be known as distressed communities.

9
Beyer: To put a face to this recommendation. A Cleaner Greener NYSERDA grant went to Allegany
County, a very rural county, who received $65,000 to build a comprehensive planning school which
was able to then walk an additional four municipalities through comprehensive planning.

10
Marx: I suggest we fund this as close to local municipalities as we can so that we keep the assistance
close to an entity that can continue it. Thinks one of the most effective things New York State can do
is fund local assistance planners based on population in every county in the State, this would
provide more funding assistance to towns.

Camilo Osorio: It’s important to recognize equity concerns but there’s also a need to call out
gentrification and in local aspects call out the importance of building grassroots planning for more
engagement and participation. We can recognize existing plans at that level as well.

Beyer: We see some grassroots programs like the Brownfield program. A case study in Fulton, NY
also pulled together a group of citizens who put their waterfront plan together and then used that
for their downtown program. Communities can certainly play bigger role.

11
Lowery: This is very much something to look into, not sure it is applicable in New York State. Just to
clarify home rule in California continues to apply. The California Resources Board for each MPO sets
a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. Each MPO is required to develop a sustainable
communities plan for how it will reach that goal. Municipal plans are not required to be consistent
with that plan, but for projects that are consistent under the California Environmental Quality
Review Act they can get waivers that are intended to promote and streamline further consistent
projects. This is also the strategy this group could use to fulfill its requirement for carbon mitigation
under the land use title.

Moser: The marshes and wetlands sequester a lot of carbon so this is a helpful model to mitigate
carbon released in the atmosphere in that regard.

Marx: Is there a framework for someone in the state to score how those goals are met?

Lowery: The California Resource Board meets to review the plan but they are a very large and well-
equipped program that certifies the plans and determines the benefits.

Malinowski: This sounds interesting but difficult to implement. The idea of setting regional
emissions reductions targets and following through on that sounds difficult.

Lowery: We are going to propose a joint meeting among other advisory panels and we have to
consider if we can achieve our emissions mandate while ensuring equity in housing and lands
without something like this. I don’t think our current processes are going to cut it.

12
Beyer: Whenever affordable housing is mentioned local communities get nervous, how is this
something we can prevent?

Lowery: How do we define “smart growth project”?

Bayer: There are 11 criteria in law. They start with the “where” of location and the “how” of basic
planning principles.

13
Lowery: Those only apply to public housing projects. They could be expanded to private projects
but has never seen an objective criteria by which a smart growth project could be evaluated.

Beyer: We got somewhat close with the draft of the sustainable development piece in the Seeker
Reforms in 2016 and 2017 but there were shortcomings to that, so it’s not the final solution. There
are barriers to trying to streamline controversial projects that are related to our goals by aiming to
integrate equity of environmental quality in the community.

Marx: Looking at struggling commercial properties like malls as focal points for smart growth is less
likely to get pushback that occurs when people buy property and try to get consideration there.
Across the State there are properties that could take advantage of those locations and seek review
for mixed use.

Beyer: Right, I included that in the category of “dead and dying commercial growth areas” relating
to industrial sites. To address Kevin in the chat who was not able to get through – equity
considerations use different terms for disadvantaged communities, and we should define them or
make them uniform. Thinks downtowns should be added because they’ve been hit hard by COVID
and not every town has a “disadvantaged” community.

14
Crowell: The three draft strategies aim to centralize state strategies to avoid inconstancies among
municipalities. They focus on streamlining strategies, promoting local engagement with
communities, and overcoming legal fees.

15
16
Marx: In Tompkins County we were looking at giving rental buildings energy ratings for insulation
and efficiency.

Crowell: Bringing awareness of this can highlight areas for savings in utility bills.

Crowell: In NYC places that have put ratings outside of buildings have brought awareness. Need to
keep in mind the burden on local municipalities and what they need in order to implement any of
these more streamlined higher energy codes. May require education, as well as more third-party
inspection and other means of making sure the burden isn’t unduly placed.

Lowery: We should emphasize the point on differences of requirements and different applicability
of the codes on new buildings and retrofit buildings. We should rename this to make sure it applies
to both new and retrofitted buildings.

17
18
Lowery: In Summary, the subgroup from the November 5th meeting on adaptation and resilience is
working on compiling recommendations. This has been a long-standing issue. We know what we
have to do but lack the resources and staff to put those recommendations into action. We don’t
know how the council will choose to add adaptation and resilience into the scoping plan, climate
law does not require this, they have been asked to develop recommendations. I intend to use this
process as a blueprint for state action on reliance.

19
Moser: There has been advocacy in the environmental community, and advisory panels are coming
up with recommendations, but unless there is funding and allocation of resources, they will not gain
support. There is a lot of money in the Bond Act for this work so hopefully we can push that for
either 2021 or 2022. It will take a while to roll this into a plan but I am hopeful this good work will
get funding in the future.

Marx: Think they will come up with targeted funding toward these areas so hopes they capture
those even though there’s a need to look more holistically in the future.

Lowery: Each advisory panel has appointed at least one and some two, liaisons to this group for
adaptation and resilience, that we will meet with. They develop recommendations and strategies
are that will be rolled into these strategies as well. They are looking at short and long term
timelines for solutions to both particular and broad issues.

20
Marx: They issued a guidance document a few week ago and other documents related to flood risk.

Lowery: One of the short-term things they could do – NYC has developed guidelines for public
investments that take into consideration rising sea levels, storm water runoff and heat. That applies
to buildings NYC funds, they could create a similar program for NYS owned buildings.

21
Crowell: Strategies are open for input and we are on the calendar to meet with the CAC for a high-
level progress report. I will make it clear these are preliminary ideas that we will continue to build
out.

22
Gita Nandan: Everyone in the panel now has access to the survey document. They can now send the
survey to their contacts. If they want to start scheduling interviews they can and fill in the form on
their own as they do the interview. Trying to get everything done before December 1st so they
might want to consider adding another weekend.

23